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 filingsThe 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.
2003 - 392 filings
2004 - 441 filings
2005 - 524 filings
2006 - 511 filings
2007 - 643 filings
2008 - 165 filings
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)
Posts
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.
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?
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.
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?
Post a Comment