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

August 11, 2025

In considering a motion to dismiss infringement claims for two related patents, the District of Massachusetts recently held that pre-suit knowledge of a “parent” patent, without more, is insufficient to establish pre-suit knowledge of the “child” patent for purposes of indirect and willful infringement.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 8, 2025

Following a jury verdict finding trade secret misappropriation, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted-in-part a plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction to prohibit defendants from using plaintiff’s trade secrets. The district court further required defendants to reassign to plaintiff patents and patent applications that disclosed or were derived from plaintiff’s trade secrets as part of its equitable relief.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 6, 2025

In ruling on a recent motion to strike, a judge in the Eastern District of Texas permitted a damages expert to rely on a damages theory based on defendant’s “avoided costs,” holding that this theory did not run afoul of the “entire market value rule.”

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board after concluding that the board’s analysis of licensing evidence offered as a secondary consideration of nonobviousness constituted legal error and was not supported by substantial evidence. According to the court, the board applied a more exacting and improperly heightened nexus standard than is required by law for license evidence.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

A Northern District of California judge recently granted a motion to reconsider his summary judgment ruling that defendant was barred from raising certain “device art” due to IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). In the original ruling, the judge adopted the broader rule that IPR estoppel applies to device art that is “materially identical” to patents or printed publications that petitioners raised, or could have raised, in an IPR. Following that ruling, however, the Federal Circuit issued its Ingenico decision adopting the narrower view that IPR estoppel applies only to “grounds” based on patents and printed publications and not to device-based grounds. Citing Ingenico as a “change of law,” defendant moved for reconsideration of the court’s ruling, and the court granted the motion.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

In a recent decision designated as Informative, the USPTO Director determined that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board abused its discretion by instituting two inter partes review proceedings challenging the same patent, based on petitions advancing different constructions of the same claim term. The Director expressed concerns that permitting multiple petitions based on alternative claim constructions effectively circumvents word count limitations, strains board resources, and undermines procedural efficiency.

...

Read More

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

© 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.