PTAB Refuses to Deny Parallel IPR Petitions Where the Asserted Claims Involve Several Dozen Means-Plus-Function Limitations

Feb 26, 2021

Reading Time : 1 min

Notably, the patent owner did not respond to the petitioner’s argument or otherwise address the issue in its preliminary response, but the board considered whether parallel petitions were necessary nevertheless. Quoting from its Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, the board first emphasized “that in most cases, ‘one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent.’”  But as the board further noted, “the Guide also ‘recognizes that there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary, including for example, when the patent owner has asserted a large number of claims in litigation.’”  The patent owner, though, had asserted only 12 claims in the district court case—which, according to the board, was not “an extraordinary number.”

However, those 12 claims involved “42 limitations in means-plus-function format.”  The board observed that this would require claim construction pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), under which the petitioner would have to identify, for each of the twelve claims, “the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.”  The board thus concluded that “[g]iven the requirements in [the] rules for challenging means-plus-function claim limitations and in the absence of argument or comment from Patent Owner, [it would] accept Petitioner’s argument that two petitions are necessary in this case.”

Practice Tip: The board’s ruling demonstrates that even where a patent owner has asserted a seemingly limited number of claims in a co-pending district court case, the number and nature of the limitations contained within those claims still may warrant multiple IPR petitions. At the same time, the board’s emphasis on “the absence of argument or comment from Patent Owner” suggests that the board might have reached a different result had the patent owner proactively opposed the need for parallel IPR proceedings. Both petitioners and patent owners, therefore, should keep in mind that just because there is a large number of claims or claim limitations at issue does not necessarily mean the board will find multiple petitions appropriate.

Case: DJI Europe BV v. Daedalus Blue, LLC., IPR2020-01474, Paper 14 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2021)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

July 25, 2025

Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Qualcomm II) raised questions about the extent to which petitioners can rely on applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in inter partes review proceedings.  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. largely cabins the Qualcomm II decision to its particular facts and makes clear that AAPA can be used as evidence of background knowledge as part of an obviousness argument.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a PTAB determination on remand that a patent was obvious over applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in combination with prior art patents, holding that expressly designating AAPA as a “basis” for a ground is improper under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). In doing so, the Court rejected the PTAB’s “blanket rule” that “AAPA used in combination with prior art patents or printed publications under § 311(b) is ipso facto not the basis or part of the basis of a ground.” Ultimately, while the case clarifies that expressly listing AAPA in an IPR ground is improper, the precise line between proper and improper uses of AAPA in other instances remains unclear.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 1, 2025

In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that the enablement inquiry applied to prior art references in the context of an anticipation defense differs from the enablement inquiry applied when evaluating the claims of a patent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 26, 2025

The Northern District of Ohio denied a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce test results referenced in its initial disclosures and complaint. The court found that because the “test results are not facts but rather are opinions,” the information was protected as work product. Furthermore, because that testing would not be used as evidence in the litigation, the defendant was not prejudiced.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit definitively held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has jurisdiction over IPRs that concern expired patents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a patent infringement litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied a joint motion to stay the litigation pending resolution of inter partes review when it was uncertain that all defendants would be bound by the statutory estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 30, 2025

A district court recently dismissed a patent infringement complaint for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), finding that the storage and distribution of products from an Amazon warehouse was not sufficient to establish that warehouse as a regular and established place of business in the district.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 27, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a District of Delaware finding of non-infringement in an ANDA litigation due to the patentee’s clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope during prosecution. Specifically, the court held that statements made during prosecution of a parent application before the asserted claims were allowed amounted to a prosecution disclaimer that extended to subsequent patents in the family. In reaching this conclusion, the court rejected an attempt by the patentee to resurrect the claim scope through a unilateral, self-serving statement made in later applications in the family.

...

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.