United States: Patent Owners' Use Of Unexpected Results Before IPR Institution

Patent owners in the life sciences and chemistry areas must frequently decide whether to submit evidence of unexpected results as part of their preliminary responses in inter partes review (IPR) or other post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In some instances, the evidence of unexpected results may already be of record in the challenged patent's prosecution history, and the patent may even have been granted based on such evidence. In others, patent owners may have generated new data establishing that the claimed invention exhibits unexpectedly superior properties or results. In addition to considering the persuasiveness of the data, patent owners must strategically consider whether unexpected results evidence and arguments will be persuasive to the PTAB at the preliminary stage of a trial and lead to non-institution.

To assist patent owners with this important strategic decision, we have reviewed over 90 institution decisions issued by the PTAB that addressed a patent owner's submission of evidence and arguments related to unexpected results. Below we provide statistics on the PTAB's response to this evidence, summarize key decisions in which the PTAB responded favorably or unfavorably to such evidence, and identify factors for a patent owner to consider in its analysis of this key strategic question.

As of Sept. 8, 2017, we identified 184 PTAB institution decisions that referred to unexpected results. In 97 of these decisions, the board addressed the patent owner's submission of unexpected results evidence. In the remaining 87 decisions, the patent owner did not submit any evidence of unexpected results, but the board nonetheless mentioned the issue of unexpected results in its decision. A breakdown of the 97 cases in which unexpected results was addressed by the board is as follows:

As depicted, the board found unexpected results evidence persuasive in only 7.7 percent of these cases, and found the evidence to be either unpersuasive or preserved the issue for trial in the remaining 86.9 percent of cases.

Cases Where the Board Found Evidence of Unexpected Results Persuasive at the Preliminary Stage of an IPR

Evidence of unexpected results favorably influenced the board's decision not to institute trial in just seven of the 97 cases examined. In most of these instances, the board recognized that "substantially the same" arguments had been previously fully considered, analyzed, and accepted by the PTO and therefore exercised its discretion to decline institution. For example, in Lower Drug Prices for Consumers, LLC v. Forest Laboratories Holdings Ltd., IPR2016-00379, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. July 1, 2016), the PTAB denied institution, finding that the petitioner's obviousness challenges were based on the same prior art reference and arguments that were addressed during prosecution of the patent. Id. at 9. There, the board itself had previously found that the patent owner established unexpected results in an ex parte appeal during prosecution, and that the petitioner's arguments against the evidence were the same as raised by the examiner. Id. The board even noted that the petition failed to address any of the asserted deficiencies found by the earlier panel and thus concluded that it was "not inclined to reconsider the Board's prior decision." Id. at 12.

The board has similarly denied institution when the prosecution history contained evidence of unexpected results and the examiner relied, at least in part, on such evidence in granting the patent. Coalition for Affordable Drugs V LLC v. Hoffman-LaRoche Inc., IPR2015-01792, Paper 14, p. 18 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2016). The board has even considered evidence of secondary considerations from a parallel proceeding before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) as persuasive. Robert Bosch Tool Corp. v. SD3, LLC, IPR2016-01753, Paper 15, pp. 27–39 (Mar. 22, 2017). In this case, the patent owner relied upon evidence that was introduced during the ITC investigation against the petitioner, in which the administrative law judge concluded that the evidence of secondary considerations was "very strong" in favor of the patent owner. Id. at 28. Although the board found secondary factors other than unexpected results more persuasive, it relied on all of these secondary considerations in its decision to deny institution. Id. at 33.

Commonly, the PTAB will cite its discretionary power, under 35 U.S.C. §325(d), as an additional reason for declining to institute trial. See Adva Optical Networking, Inc. v. Rad Data Commc'ns Ltd., IPR2016-01848, Paper 6, pp. 20–21, 24 (Mar. 9, 2017); Robert Bosch Tool Corp. v. SD3, LLC, IPR2016-01754, Paper 15, pp. 19–20 (Mar. 22, 2017). Section 325(d) provides that, "[i]n determining whether to institute or order a proceeding ... the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office." In considering the petitioner's arguments, the board will examine whether the petition sets forth new arguments, persuasive facts, or data to justify reexamining a previous finding by the PTO supporting unexpected results. Merely introducing an expert declaration containing the same arguments from the prosecution history may not be found sufficient to disturb a finding of unexpected results. Adva Optical, IPR2016-01848, Paper 6 at 20. If the petition fails to set forth any new evidence or arguments beyond what was in the prosecution history, the board may decline to "reweigh the evidence" and not institute trial. Id. The board has also found that it is petitioner's burden to address evidence of unexpected results known to the petitioner either from earlier prosecution, litigation, or the specification, and has denied institution when petitioner has failed to do so. See e.g., Praxair Distrib., Inc. v. INO Therapeutics, Inc., IPR2015-00522, Paper 12 at 16–17 (P.T.A.B. July 29, 2015).

To successfully persuade the board that evidence of unexpected results establishes nonobviousness, the evidence should be directly commensurate in scope with the claims at issue. The PTAB's decision in Lupin Ltd. v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc., IPR 2015-00405, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. July 9, 2015), exemplifies this requirement. There, the patent owner presented evidence that its patented compound, fosamprenavir, possessed unexpected results in the form of improved pharmacokinetics, lower side effects, and improved resistance profile than its parent drug. Id. at 18–19. Recognizing that one claim of the challenged patent was directed to compounds other than fosamprenavir, the board concluded that the unexpected results evidence was not commensurate in scope with that claim, and instituted trial regarding only that claim. Id. at 22–23. The board did not, however, institute trial on the claims that were directed only to fosamprenavir or its salts. Id.

As our analysis reveals, the PTAB rarely declines to institute trial on the basis of unexpected results evidence. In the few instances that it has done so, institution was denied because the petitioner proffered nearly identical arguments and prior art that the board had previously found unpersuasive. As demonstrated by Lupin, the board will interpret the arguments supporting unexpected results narrowly at the pre-institution stage, and may find that the proffered evidence only supports certain claims.

Cases Where the Board Was Not Persuaded by Evidence of Unexpected Results at the Preliminary Stage of an IPR

In most cases where the patent owner presented evidence of unexpected results in its preliminary response, the board acknowledged the evidence but instituted trial to allow for full development of the record. See Eli Lilly & Co. v. The Trustees of the Univ. of Pa., IPR2016-00458, Paper 7, p. 21 (P.T.A.B. July 14, 2016). In these decisions, the board declined to substantively examine the unexpected results evidence by emphasizing that the standard for institution requires only that there be a "reasonable likelihood" that the petitioner will prevail on just one challenged claim. To prevail at trial, in contrast, requires the challenger to establish unpatentability by a "preponderance of the evidence."

Comparing these two standards, the board often concludes that determination of unexpected results is premature at the pre-institution phase, and chooses to institute trial to "permit the parties to develop a more complete record during discovery." Eli Lilly, IPR 2016-00458 at 22; see also Umicore AG & Co. KG v. Basf Corp., IPR2015-01124, Paper 8, p. 22 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 2, 2015) ("At this stage of the proceeding, the records regarding such secondary considerations is incomplete, and the petitioner has not had the ability to fully respond to the specific arguments raised by patent owner in the preliminary response. Our final decision will consider the parties' full record of secondary considerations evidence developed during trial as part of our obviousness analysis."). The board, for example, may institute trial despite the prosecution history containing expert declarations affirming the existence of unexpected results. Mylan Pharms., Inc., v. Allergan, Inc., IPR2016-01129 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2016). In Mylan, the board based its decision to institute on the fact that neither expert had yet been subject to cross-examination and concluded that it was "more appropriate to allow further evidence regarding any alleged unexpected results or other secondary considerations to be developed during trial." Id. at 21–22.

In 11 of the cases in which the PTAB was not persuaded by the proffered evidence of unexpected results, it commented on the persuasiveness of patent owner's evidence. For instance, in Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc., IPR2014-00676, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2014), the board was not influenced by the patent owner's expert declarations from the prosecution history as evidencing unexpected results, finding that those declarations did not consider the prior art references at issue in the petition. Id. at 22. The board further found that the patent owner failed to adequately address "whether evidence of objective indicia are reasonably commensurate with the scope of the challenged claims, whether a sufficient nexus exists between such evidence and the merits of the claimed invention, or whether evidence of unexpected results establishes a difference between the results obtained and those of the closest prior art." Id. Considering the evidence of record at the time, the board found that the petitioner had established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim, and instituted trial. Id. at 23.

The PTAB has often not been persuaded by unexpected results evidence when there were no assertions of such results in the prosecution history or the evidence was never before the examiner. Coalition for Affordable Drugs VII LLC v. Pozen Inc., IPR2015-01718, Paper 17, pp. 19–20 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2017) (patent owner's unexpected results evidence included a declaration submitted in a continuation application, and post-filing date scientific publications were deemed issues for trial); Lupin Ltd. v. Senju Pharm. Co., Ltd., IPR2015-01097, Paper 9, pp. 17–18 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2015) (Patent Owner has not directed us to any clear or specific description in the Specification of the '131 patent or elsewhere, characterizing or establishing the results shown in the '131 patent as being unexpected). In these situations, the board has instituted trial to give the petitioner an opportunity to respond to this new evidence and to allow full development of the record.


At the preliminary phase of an IPR, the board is seldom so persuaded by evidence of unexpected results that it declines to institute trial. In the few situations where this has occurred, the patent owner demonstrated that the board (or, in one instance, the ITC) had previously accepted the evidence of unexpected results and that the petitioner failed to raise any persuasive new arguments against the evidence.

Importantly, the board appears to interpret any unexpected results evidence narrowly at the pre-institution stage, and to apply it only to claims that are directly commensurate in scope with the evidence. More commonly, the board will acknowledge the presence of the unexpected results evidence, but find that the standard of review for instituting trial weighs in favor of institution to allow the parties to develop the record as fully as possible.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
23 Jan 2018, Conference, Bangalore, India

Finnegan is a Bronze sponsor of the 10th annual Global Intellectual Property Convention, hosted by ITAG Business Solutions.

24 Jan 2018, Conference, California, United States

Finnegan is a Crystal sponsor of the American Intellectual Property Law Association Mid-Winter Institute, supporting the IP Practice in Japan Pre-Meeting.

30 Jan 2018, Webinar, Washington, DC, United States

As part of the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada’s webinar series, Finnegan partners Andrew Holtman and Jason Stach will share their insights on how the PTAB trial process is changing and how patent owners and petitioners alike can best position themselves for success.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:
  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.
  • Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.
    If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here
    If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here

    Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

    Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

    Use of www.mondaq.com

    You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


    Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

    The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


    Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

    • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
    • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
    • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

    Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

    Information Collection and Use

    We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

    We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

    Mondaq News Alerts

    In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


    A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

    Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

    Log Files

    We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


    This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

    Surveys & Contests

    From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


    If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


    From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

    *** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


    This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

    Correcting/Updating Personal Information

    If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

    Notification of Changes

    If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

    How to contact Mondaq

    You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

    If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.

    By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions