Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 17 MAY 2020

MPF – Corresponding Structure = Trouble For Petitioners

Jones Day
Jones Day
Contributor
Jones Day

Jones Day

Jones Day is a global law firm with more than 2,400 lawyers in 40 offices across five continents....

View firm profile
Explore more from Jones Day

Means-plus-function claim limitations can present troublesome § 112 issues for IPR petitioners, and a recent PTAB decision further demonstrates how § 112 problems can derail an IPR petition.

United StatesIntellectual Property

Means-plus-function claim limitations can present troublesome § 112 issues for IPR petitioners, and a recent PTAB decision further demonstrates how § 112 problems can derail an IPR petition. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2020-00046, Paper 6 (PTAB Apr. 1, 2020).

We have previously discussed the potential complications faced by IPR petitioners challenging patent claims that include means-plus-function limitations.  In particular, petitioners sometimes get tripped up by the PTAB rule requiring the petition to identify the corresponding structure in the specification for means-plus-function claim terms.  See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ("Where the claim to be construed contains a means-plus-function ... limitation ... the construction of the claim must identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.").

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

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.

See more popular content from