Director Vidal Hands Down Precedential Decision on Issue of First Impression Addressing Patentability of Multiple Dependent Claims

April 11, 2023

Reading Time : 2 min

By: Caitlin E. Olwell, Rubén H. Muñoz, Ange Christiani (Law Clerk)

Nested Bean, Inc. v. Big Beings Pty Ltd., IPR2020-01234, Paper 42 (Feb. 24, 2023).

Patent Office Director Katherine Vidal recently issued a precedential decision addressing an issue of first impression before the Board: whether the patentability of multiple dependent claims must be determined separately for each independent claim on which those dependent claims rely.  According to the decision, the unpatentability of some, but not all, of the independent claims from which a multiple dependent claim depends does not automatically render unpatentable that dependent claim.

The Patent Owner in this case requested Director Review of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Final Written Decision, holding that claims 2-16 of United States Patent No. 9,179,711 (the “711 Patent”) were unpatentable.  Claims 1 and 2 of the 711 Patent were independent claims.  Claims 3-16 were multiple dependent claims, which alternatively referenced and depended from either independent claim 1 or claim 2.  The PTAB held that claims 3-16 were unpatentable because claim 2—only one of the independent claims from which claims 3-16 alternatively depended—was unpatentable. 

Under Director Review, the Patent Owner argued as a potential issue of first impression that the PTAB’s decision was in error because it failed to separately consider the patentability of claims 3-16 under the alternatively referenced independent claim 1.  In her decision, Director Vidal agreed with Patent Owner that: (i) this was an issue of first impression, and (ii) the Board was required to consider multiple dependent claim patentability with respect to all alternatively referenced independent claims.  As such, Director Vidal reversed the PTAB’s decision and ultimately upheld the patentability of claims 3-16 in view of the patentability of independent claim 1.

When issuing this ruling, Director Vidal called attention to the plain language of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 5, quoting in pertinent part “[a] multiple dependent claim shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the particular claim in relation to which it is being considered.”  According to the Director’s decision, this language requires a separate patentability analysis of multiple dependent claims, particularly when coupled with 35 U.S.C. § 282, which states that “[e]ach claim of a patent (whether in independent, dependent, or multiple dependent form) shall be presumed valid independently of the validity of other claims[.]”  Without this interpretation, the Director noted, §§ 112 and 282 would fail to have effect.  The plain language of 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(c) regarding fee calculation also supported the decision.  See 37 C.F.R. 1.75(c) (“For fee calculation purposes . . . a multiple dependent claim will be considered to be that number of claims to which direct reference is made therein.”).  Additionally, the Director reasoned that an interpretation requiring separate analysis of multiple dependent claims for each independent claim on which they rely aligns with long-standing USPTO practice and guidance.  See MPEP § 608.01(n)(I)(B)(4) (Eighth Ed., Rev. 7 (July 2008)) (“[A] multiple dependent claim…contains in any one embodiment only those limitations of the particular claim referred to for the embodiment under consideration.”) (emphasis added).  The Director’s decision applies with equal force to both pre-AIA and AIA patent claims. 

Practice Tip: Petitioners challenging the patentability of multiple dependent claims should recognize that they must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that each independent claim from which those dependent claims depend is also unpatentable. Additionally, when drafting claims, patentees should consider carefully whether a multiple dependent claim strategy may be beneficial in asserting infringement and/or fending off patentability challenges.  

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.