Friday, March 14, 2008

Latest Ex Parte Reexamination Statistics from the PTO

The latest statistics on Ex Parte Reexamination (through December 2007) have been released by the PTO. As expected, the number of reexamination requests continue to climb:

2002 - 272 filings
2003 - 392 filings
2004 - 441 filings
2005 - 524 filings
2006 - 511 filings
2007 - 643 filings
2008 - 165 filings
The success rate for requestors has not changed, and continues to favor requestors. Overall, all claims are confirmed in 26% of reexams, claims are changed in 64% of reexams, and 10% of reexams result in all claims being cancelled.

Average pendency of an ex parte reexamination is 2 years, and median pendency is just over a year-and-a-half (18.6 months).

Read/download PTO Ex Parte Reexamination statistics here (link)

4 Comentários:

TJ said...

The success rate for requestors has not changed, and continues to favor requestors. Overall, all claims are confirmed in 26% of reexams, claims are changed in 64% of reexams, and 10% of reexams result in all claims being cancelled.

The success rate for (third party) requestors cannot be determined from this data. It's buried in that 64% figure.

In some of that 64%, the claims will have undergone a major change, such that the requestor is no longer worried by the patent. A success for the requestor.

But in other cases, the claims may have been amended in such a way that the requestor still infringes. A failure for the requestor.

Given that the patentee holds all the procedural cards during ex-parte reexam proceedings, and the third party requestor holds none, I'll bet that quite a high proportion of the 64% are in reality failures for the requestor.

NY IP said...

How did you determine that these statistics came from the USPTO? The link is to a file coming from EFF's website and the report that is linked to cannot be found in the PTO's Annual report. How could I cite these statistics?

Joe C. said...

The figures seem to be consistent with the uspto's FY2003-2007 figures (pulled from the Performance and Accountability Report FY2007). I'm not sure about the totals though, they could be wrong.

NY IP said...

Thank you Joe C. The linked report seems have been created with PTO letterhead (anybody can photshop that). And that's what make this post deceptive and unreliable. I wonder if anybody knows who wrote that report or where it even came from originally?

DISCLAIMER

This Blog/Web Site ("Blog") is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. Use of the Blog does not create any attorney-client relationship between you and Peter Zura or his firm. Persons requiring legal advice should contact a licensed attorney in your state. Any comment posted on the Blog can be read by any Blog visitor; do not post confidential or sensitive information. Any links from another site to the Blog are beyond the control of Peter Zura and does not convey his, or his past or present employer(s) approval, support, endorsement or any relationship to any site or organization.

The 271 Patent Blog © 2008. Template by Dicas Blogger.

TOPO