LoginSubscribe Now
International In-house Counsel Journal Logo
International In-house Counsel Journal Logo
  • Home
  • Business Sectors
  • Areas of Law
  • Editorial Board
  • Write a Paper
  • Subscribe
  • Books
  • Reports
  • Back Issues
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Cookie Policy
  • Privacy Policy
  • PLS LogoCopyright & permissions
© 2026 International In-house Counsel Journal Ltd. | ISSN 1754-0607 | Picture Credits: Freepix, Unsplash and by permission of the authors
Back to library search

Assessing Commercial Success at the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board

September 2015Intellectual PropertyConsultant

Abstract

U.S. patents increasingly are challenged on validity grounds through inter partes reviews at the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “board”). In fact, from September 2012 through June 30, 2015, there have been over 3,000 inter partes review (“IPR”) petitions filed by petitioners. Filings per month have increased from an average of 28 petitions in 2012 to 58 in 2013 to 125 in 2014 to 144 so far in 2015. Many patent owners raise a “commercial success” defense in response to such challenges. They argue that the success of products embodying the challenged patent proves that the patented invention must not have been obvious. Had the invention been obvious, the argument goes, the products embodying the patented invention would not have enjoyed the marketplace success that they, in fact, did. If the invention was obvious, someone else would have introduced a product incorporating the patented features earlier. Patent owners rarely have been successful at the PTAB in invoking this defense. In 82 final written decisions in IPR proceedings (through June 2015) that considered commercial success as a potential defense to patentability, the patent owner prevailed only twice. In all other cases, the patent owner failed in proving non-obviousness through a showing of commercial success.

Subscribe to reador
PLS Logo Copyright & permissions

Authors

John Jarosz

Managing Principal, Analysis Group, Inc., USA

Robert Vigil

Managing Principal, Analysis Group, Inc., USA

Related Papers

German Patent Modernisation Act – A Game Changer for Protection of Confidential Information in Patent Litigation?
Protection of confidential information disclosed in litigation used to be insufficient in Germany. For a long time, it was only regulated fragmentarily. Despite the implementation of the Trade Secret Directive...Read more
Portrait image of Nikita Alymov
Nikita Alymov
Attorney-at-law, Hoffmann Eite, Germany
Portrait image of Dirk Schüßler-Langeheine
Dirk Schüßler-Langeheine
attorney-at-law, partner, Hoffmann Eitle, Germany
A right to copy, right?
Copyright is an intellectual property right that vests automatically. The question arises, whether the right has international enforcement due to the nature of the right. Copyright subsists the moment it...Read more
Portrait image of Madelein Kleyn
Madelein Kleyn
CEO, Mad K IP Consulting (Pty) Ltd, South Africa
Freedom to Operate Conundrum
Growing a patent portfolio by protecting the innovation derived from research and development investment is merely the beginning to the creation of value. Freedom to use, sell and otherwise...Read more
Portrait image of Madelein Kleyn
Madelein Kleyn
CEO, Mad K IP Consulting (Pty) Ltd, South Africa
A Personal Journey - Life After In-House
I have been both in-house and in private practice and now have my own brand consulting firm. How I travelled the road to this time in my life is worth...Read more
Portrait image of Kathryn Belleau
Kathryn Belleau
Consultant, Kgb Consulting, Llc, USA