Claim Construction Issues and Large Number of Claims Not Enough to Institute a Second Petition for Inter Partes Review

May 12, 2025

Reading Time : 3 min

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not persuaded by petitioner’s arguments that a second petition was needed due to alleged claim construction issues or the number, length or scope differences of the challenged claims.

Petitioner raised three grounds in its petition, which challenged 24 patent claims generally directed to an ergonomic, adjustable baby carrier. It was filed the same day as another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent, but asserting different grounds. Petitioner ranked the other petition first and the present petition second. 

The board’s Consolidated Trial Practice Guide provides that, in most situations, one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent and that, while more than one petition may be necessary in certain circumstances, two petitions should be rare. Petitioner argued that a second petition was needed here for three reasons: (1) one of the references had an allegedly undetermined status as prior art because of a pending decision from the Federal Circuit; (2) petitioner proposed two different “approaches” to construing a certain term; and (3) the large number of claims necessitated a second petition.

Petitioner’s first argument was that the Federal Circuit’s decision in Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 125 F.4th 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2025), which applied pre-AIA law, had the potential to disqualify a certain reference as prior art. Given that there was no dispute that AIA law applied to this proceeding, the board rejected that argument. Even if the Federal Circuit’s decision were overturned on rehearing or at the Supreme Court, the decision would not impact the availability of the reference as prior art here.

Next, petitioner contended that a second petition was needed because it was presenting two different “approaches” to construing a claim term: (1) plain and ordinary meaning and (2) means-plus-function under § 112(f). In a board decision cited by petitioner, the first-ranked petition presented one approach to the prior art, and a second petition was permitted because it presented a different approach such that the petitions did not meaningfully overlap. See SolarEdge v. SMA Solar Techs., IPR2019-01224, Paper 10 at 10 (PTAB Jan. 23, 2020). But here, petitioner had addressed both approaches to claim construction in both its petitions. As such, the board was not persuaded that a second petition was warranted.

Petitioner’s third argument was that the number of challenged claims, claim length and alleged differences in claim scope warranted a second petition. For support, petitioner quoted the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide’s discussion of parallel petitions, stating that a second petition may be needed when a large number of claims has been asserted in litigation. The board rejected that argument. The board stated that if petitioner could challenge 24 claims across three grounds in one petition, the number of claims does not necessarily warrant a second petition to again challenge the same 24 claims across three additional grounds. The board also noted that, if the length of the claims were such an issue, petitioner would not have been able to challenge all 24 claims across multiple different grounds in each petition. Further, the board was not persuaded that alleged differences in claim scope warranted a second petition, because much of petitioner’s analysis within each ground relied almost exclusively on cross-referencing prior analysis. For reach of these reasons, the board exercised its discretion to deny institution of the petition.

Practice Tip:

More than one approach to claim construction and a large number of challenged claims do not necessarily warrant institution of a second IPR challenging the same claims. Further, the board may deny institution of multiple petitions where the challenged claims have insubstantial differences such that a petitioner can rely on cross referencing prior analyses in the petition. Given that the board’s procedures indicate that institution of a second petition should be a rare occurrence, a petitioner should strongly consider advancing its strongest arguments in a single petition or its first-ranked petition.

BabyBjörn AB v. Ergo Baby Carrier Inc., IPR2025-00111, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2025)

 

 

 

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.