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

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.