ARTICLE
4 October 2021

A Large Number Of Means-Plus-Function Limitations Justifies Parallel Petitions Challenging Different Claims Of Same Patent On Same Grounds

WT
Winston Taylor

Contributor

Whether you're leading the way, disrupting an industry, entering a new phase of growth, or launching a defining product—we're in the room with you. In the action. Sleeves rolled up.

With a rich history spanning both sides of the Atlantic, we are present in the major commercial centers that matter to our clients: the U.S., the U.K., Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East. Combining scale with the speed clients demand, our defining capabilities include major litigation, critical transactions, strategic IP, and private wealth.

Our team of over 1,400 lawyers works hand-in-hand across markets, sectors, practice areas, and client teams. All-in problem solvers, we bring the creativity to think differently, and the pragmatism to get things done when it counts the most.

Embedded in your business and sharing your ambition, we take the work personally. Shaping what we do and how we do it around your goals and needs, always one step ahead of the moment.

The Board instituted trial on these parallel petitions, which asserted the same grounds against the same patent, but on different claims.
United States Intellectual Property

DJI Europe B.V. v. Daedalus Blue LLC, IPR2020-01474, Paper 14 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2021)DJI Europe B.V. v. Daedalus Blue LLC, IPR2020-01475, Paper 14 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2021).
Before: Grossman, Jeschke, and Peslak.

The Board instituted trial on these parallel petitions, which asserted the same grounds against the same patent, but on different claims. The petitions covered all claims asserted in a parallel district court litigation. The 1474 petition was directed to six method and five computer product claims and the 1475 petition was directed to five system claims. The Petitioner asserted that parallel petitions were necessary because there were forty-two claim limitations in means-plus-function format in the five system claims. Patent Owner did not respond to Petitioner's assertion that two petition were necessary. The Board held that even though patent owner had not asserted a large number of claims in the parallel litigation, in view of the large number of means-plus-function limitation and the absence of any response from Patent Owner to Petitioner's Explanation of Parallel Petitions, the Board would institute both petitions.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More