Key Takeaways

  • An inter partes review (IPR) is a trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) used to challenge the validity of an existing patent based on prior art.
  • IPRs provide a faster and more cost-effective alternative to district court litigation for resolving patent disputes.
  • The petition phase includes strict filing timelines, detailed evidentiary requirements, and strategic considerations regarding claim construction and estoppel.
  • Patent owners can respond with evidence, amend claims, and participate in discovery and oral hearings.
  • The PTAB’s final written decision may invalidate, uphold, or amend patent claims, and it can be appealed to the Federal Circuit.
  • Recent Supreme Court decisions have affirmed the constitutionality of IPRs and the PTAB’s broad authority in administering them.
  • Settlements are common, but once a final decision is made, estoppel prevents the petitioner from relitigating the same issues elsewhere.

What Is an Inter Partes Review?

An inter partes review is a trial held before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that determines whether a given patent is valid. Filing an inter partes review (IPR) means that you are challenging an existing patent. Reviews are held before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Any person other than the patent owner is eligible to file for a review. You can only file for a review if you find grounds in §§ 102 or 103 or if you find a basis in prior art or patent publications. 

Every type of patent is eligible for review. This includes first-to-invent and first-inventor-to-file patents. Petitions for first-inventor-to-file patents cannot be filed until nine months after a patent has been approved or renewed or until after the end of a post-grant review. There are no such deadlines for first-to-invent patents. The person who owns the patent has the opportunity to respond. 

A review will take place if the person challenging the patent has a chance to win their claim. Decisions will usually be made within the year. Rules for inter partes review were established on September 16, 2012, and apply to any patents issued before, on, or after that date.

Inter partes review was established by the America Invents Act (AIA). However, there are some limitations to the review process. All patents are subject to a ninth-review period. Patents can be challenged during this review period. IPR review is only allowed after these nine months have expired. This does not apply to first-to-invent patents. 

Most people confuse post-grant reviews and inter partes review despite their differences, which include the following:

  • IPR is available for all patents, regardless of priority date.
  • An IPR must be filed within one year after an infringement complaint has been served.
  • The standard of proof is different. You must prove a reasonable likelihood that you will win at least one claim before being approved for IPR. For post-grant review, you must prove that at least one challenged claim is more likely than not to be deemed unpatentable.
  • During IPR, "prior art" is limited to patents and printed publications. Patents can be challenged on any grounds during post-grant reviews.

In post-grant reviews, it's possible third parties will be prevented from raising an invalidity defenses. Inter partes review has a legal estoppel that is equal with the estoppel for inter partes reexamination. Even if a third party has taken advantage of inter partes review, they can still bring their case to other legal forums. The grounds they can use include everything except those that were used or could have been used during inter partes review.

Basic IPR Statistics

IPR has been a very popular option for challenging patents since it was created in 2012. In the fiscal years 2013 and 2014, there were 361 decisions on IPR requests, with a total of 288 IPR trials granted. This means that the PATB frequently approves petitions. This is beneficial for those considering challenging a patent. 

The first year that IPR was available, 87 percent of petitions were granted. This approval rate was 74 percent between 2013 and 2014, 65 percent between 2014 and 2015, and 66 percent between 2015 and 2016. Between 96 and 184 petitions are filed each month, which is 400 to 450 per quarter. 

Once they reach trial, IPRs tend to be decided in favor of the petitioner. For instance, 40 trials that were held in March of 2016 decided that all claims were not eligible for patent. Appeals have also increased by a large degree. In 2016, there were between 600 and 700 IPR appeals. 

Filing a Petition

There are several steps for filing an IPR petition. First, you must file within the right time frame. After an infringement complaint has been filed against you, you have one year to file your IPR petition. This is outlined under 35 U.S.C. 315(b). 

Second, your petition must comply with these conditions:

  • You must pay the required fee of $9,000. If a full review is granted, you will owe $14,000.
  • Your petition should name every interested party.
  • Each challenged patent must be listed. You should also include the reasons for your challenge. 

Your petition needs to include evidence of your claim. Evidence can include the following:

  • Printed publications and patent copies.
  • Affidavits for expert opinions.
  • Any other information requested by the PATB Director.
  • Documents required for the patent owner. 

Civil claims are automatically stayed when an IPR is filed. Counterclaims can continue. After a decision has been reached, you cannot request another review on the same grounds as your IPR or on grounds that could reasonably have been raised during your IPR. You will also be limited in your options for civil claims with the United States International Trade Commission. 

It's possible to reach a settlement with the patent owner. Settlements must be submitted in writing to the PTAB. If the PTAB accepts the settlement terms, the IPR will be canceled. There are no limits to civil action after a review has been terminated. 

You also have the right to appeal any decision in your IPR. Anyone involved in the IPR must also be involved in the appeal. 

It should take about six months before a decision about your petition has been reached. Trial decisions can take as long as a year. Appeals can add as much as three months to the process. 

Inter Partes Review Procedure and Timeline

The inter partes review process generally follows a structured timeline designed for efficiency and transparency. Once the petition is filed, the patent owner has three months to file a preliminary response. The PTAB then determines whether to institute the review — typically within six months of the petition’s filing.

If instituted, the PTAB schedules the full proceeding to be completed within 12 months, though a six-month extension may be granted for good cause. During this period:

  • Discovery allows both parties to exchange relevant information, including depositions and expert testimony.
  • Motions may be filed to amend claims or challenge procedural issues.
  • Oral hearings occur before the PTAB’s administrative judges, who then issue a final written decision determining patentability.

This streamlined process contrasts with district court litigation, which can take several years. It allows for targeted technical arguments focused solely on patent validity rather than infringement.

Estoppel

When a petitioner requests an inter partes review of a patent claim and receives a written decision, they cannot request a hearing with the USPTO for the same claim on any grounds that were raised or could have been raised during the inter partes review. This is known as an estoppel provision. There is also an estoppel against the petitioner or other interested party for civil actions in certain cases that take place before the United States International Trade Commission and result in a final written decision. 

It's possible to be permitted additional motions to amend the claims. However, this must be a joint claim made by the petitioner and patent owner in an effort to reach a settlement. 

Practical Implications of Estoppel in IPR

The estoppel provision in inter partes review serves as a critical deterrent against repetitive challenges. Once a final written decision is issued, the petitioner cannot raise in a subsequent proceeding any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised during the IPR.

This includes challenges before:

  • The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
  • The International Trade Commission (ITC), and
  • Federal district courts.

Estoppel thus encourages petitioners to consolidate all potential invalidity arguments into a single, comprehensive IPR petition. While this rule limits redundancy, it also underscores the importance of strategic pre-filing preparation — ensuring that all relevant prior art and arguments are included in the initial submission.

Settlement

Inter partes reviews can be ended when jointly requested by the petitioner and the patent owner. However, if the USPTO has ruled on the merits of the review before the termination request is filed, the review will continue. Any agreement or understanding to end an inter partes review must be submitted in writing. A verified copy of the agreement must be submitted to the USPTO before the termination will be granted. 

When an inter partes review is terminated with respect to the petitioner, the petitioner will not be subjected to estoppel based on their inter partes review request. When no petitioner is left in a review, the USPTO can either terminate the review or continue to a final written decision.

Patent Owner Rights

Patent owners can immediately respond to your petition. This response will explain why no review should be granted. Responses must be filed within three months after the IPR petition has been given a filing date. The preliminary response may be waived by the patent owner to speed up the IPR process. Responses cannot include new evidence. 

Patent owners can request a motion to amend their patent. This must take place before the patent owner response has been filed. Amendments can be denied if it directly addresses the challenge. Enlarging the scope of the patent or adding new information are also grounds for denial. If an amendment is granted, it can cancel the IPR request. 

Defending Against an Inter Partes Review

Patent owners facing an IPR have multiple avenues to defend their claims:

  1. Preliminary Response: They may argue that the petition fails to meet the statutory threshold — for example, by disputing prior art relevance or procedural compliance.
  2. Expert Declarations: Submitting technical evidence that clarifies how the claimed invention differs from cited prior art.
  3. Claim Amendments: Proposing narrower substitute claims that preserve patent validity while addressing the petitioner’s challenges.
  4. Discovery Requests: Seeking evidence that undermines the petitioner’s assertions or expert opinions.

An effective defense strategy often combines procedural challenges with substantive technical arguments. Patent owners should be mindful that amendments must not broaden the claims, and must clearly define patentable distinctions over prior art.

IPR and Property Rights

Inter partes reviews are not without controversy. In particular, patent holders claim that dealing with these reviews is an unfair burden. Some patent holders have reported that facing an IPR has affected their stock prices. 

It has been claimed by some that removing a patent through the IPR process violates property rights under the Takings Clause. However, no Supreme Court decision has ever stated that patents count as property under the Takings Clause. However, they did rule that patents do count as property in Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank. 

Still, there is no method for patent owners to receive compensation under the Takings Clause for infringement. Courts have not generally considered patent proceedings to be subject to the Takings Clause. With regulations like the America Invents Act (AIA), the Supreme Court will often consider IPR a method of correcting problems with the administrative system rather than a violation of property rights. 

Even if the AIA and IPR process weakens patents, there is no reason to believe it violates a patent holder's constitutional rights. 

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

When you file a petition for an IPR, the proceedings will be handled by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The PTAB is made up of administrative law judges. These judges will determine whether your request for review is valid, make rules for discovery, and provide a final ruling. During the trial, you must prove unpatentability by "a preponderance of the evidence."

If a review is granted, the PTAB may narrow the scope of your claim. They will provide an intricate decision about the eligible grounds in your case. Once your review has been granted, the PTAB will lay out a schedule for the next year. Your case may also be extended by six months if necessary. 

Most schedules will allow the patent owner three months for discovery. During discovery, the patent owner may gather depositions or other pieces of evidence. After discovery, there will usually be a month-long period where motions can be filed. The oral hearing will be next on the schedule. Once oral hearings are completed, the PTAB will reach a decision. 

PTAB Decision Outcomes and Appeals

Following oral arguments, the PTAB issues a final written decision that determines whether the challenged claims are patentable. Outcomes include:

  • Invalidation of all claims,
  • Partial invalidation of some claims, or
  • Upholding all claims as valid.

Either party may appeal the PTAB’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which reviews legal and procedural issues. In some cases, appeals can clarify broader patent law questions, influencing future IPR strategies and PTAB interpretations.

Since its inception, the Federal Circuit has upheld the PTAB’s findings in most cases, reinforcing the board’s reputation for technical expertise and consistency in applying patent law.

The Supreme Court and IPR

Recently, the IPR rules established by the American Invents Act were affirmed by the Supreme Court. This occurred at the conclusion of Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee. Two important issues were addressed during this case. The first was whether IPR decisions could be appealed in federal court. The second was whether the PTAB was using reasonable rules for determining claims. 

On both issues, the Court found in favor of the PTAB. In regards to appeal, the Court found that the language used in the AIA is very clear and that appeals were specifically not allowed. They also found that allowing appeals would undercut the intent to give the Patent Office more power. 

On the second issue, the Court decided that using the broadest reasonable construction to decide IPR hearings was within the authority of the PTAB. Using a previous decision, it was determined that when there is a gap in rules, an agency has the power to enact their own rules. It was also noted that the patent office has been using broadest possible construction for more than 100 years. 

Recent Developments and Policy Considerations

Several Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions have shaped the modern inter partes review process. Notably:

  • Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy (2018): Affirmed that IPRs do not violate the Constitution’s separation of powers, confirming patents as public rights subject to administrative review.
  • Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew (2021): Clarified that the USPTO Director has the final authority to review PTAB decisions, ensuring accountability within the executive branch.
  • Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee (2016): Upheld the PTAB’s use of the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard for claim construction.

These cases collectively strengthen the IPR system as a legitimate and efficient mechanism for improving patent quality and reducing costly litigation.

Frequently Asked Questions

  1. What is the main purpose of an inter partes review?
    To provide a faster, specialized process for challenging the validity of issued patent claims based on prior art.
  2. Who decides the outcome of an IPR?
    A panel of administrative law judges from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) conducts the review and issues the final decision.
  3. Can I appeal a PTAB decision?
    Yes. Either party can appeal to the Federal Circuit, which reviews legal and procedural aspects of the PTAB’s findings.
  4. How long does the entire IPR process take?
    Typically about 12 to 18 months from filing to final written decision, including potential extensions.
  5. How does IPR affect district court litigation?
    IPR can stay or simplify parallel infringement cases by resolving validity issues early, saving time and litigation costs.

If you need help with inter partes review, you can post your legal need on UpCounsel's marketplace. UpCounsel accepts only the top 5 percent of lawyers to its site. Lawyers on UpCounsel come from law schools such as Harvard Law and Yale Law and average 14 years of legal experience, including work with or on behalf of companies like Google, Menlo Ventures, and Airbnb.