The document summarizes statistics from the first three years of America Invents Act (AIA) filings with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. It reports that there were 3,655 petitions filed, most being inter partes reviews. The majority of petitions were in the electrical/computer field. Trial institutions ranged from 20-50% depending on the type of review. Overall, 12% of challenged claims were ultimately held invalid, down from 25% in the first year of inter partes reviews.

1. Patent Trial and Appeal Board Update
• Statistics based first three years of AIA filings
• 3,655 petitions
– 3,277 (89.7%) inter partes review (IPR)
– 368 (10%) covered business method (CBM)
– 10 (.3%) post grant review (PGR)
• Breakdown by subject matter
– Electrical/computer (63%)
– Biotech/pharma (9%)

2. Patent Trial and Appeal Board Update (cont.)
• Trial Institutions* (awkward data)
– IPR – 42%
– CMB – 50%
– PGR – 20%
• Results
– 12% of all claims available for challenge
ultimately held invalid (4,496 of 38,462)
(excludes claims dropped, settled or cancelled)
– Compare this with first year’s worth of IPRs in
which 25% of all claims available for challenge
were ultimately held invalid

3. Expansion of Direct Infringement
Akami v. Limelight (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc)
• LimeLight is an online content distribution site,
and the customers “tag” and “serve” content
thereon. A user agreement requires this.
• Jury found direct infringement, trial court judge
overruled on reconsideration.
• Supreme Court held that 271(b) requires a
single direct infringer.
• .

4. Expansion of Direct Infringement
• An entity is responsible for the other’s
performance of method steps when:
– (1) the entity directs or controls the other’s
performance, or
– (2) where the actors for a joint enterprise
• Before
Direct infringement = all steps performed by a
single entity or its agent
• After
Direct infringement = all steps can be attributed to
a single entity or its agent