Our services are centred around intellectual property that can be registered. We protect innovation, design, and branding across all sectors of industry, and at all stages in the supply chain.

For each IP right we offer services covering strategic advice, pre-registration searches, registrations and renewals, oppositions and dispute resolution. We handle work throughout the world, working with local colleagues in over 100 countries.


Our attorneys specialise in one or more sectors of industry, which enables them to provide quality advice with a commercial focus.

Our patent specialists have detailed understanding of the background technology, which ensures that your patent applications are prepared with the correct scope, reducing the likelihood of challenges from third parties and objections from the patent office.

They also advise whether other forms of protection would be more appropriate. Our brand specialists work with brand managers for leading brands and their advice is commercially focussed making sure that you get the best value from your budget.

“Means Plus Function” Language and Global Patent Specifications

28th Jan 2021

Truly global patent specifications are the holy grail for applicants that file around the world. It’s easy to see why. If a specification meets the requirements of all the national patent offices in which protection is going to be sought the application will easier to prosecute and litigate locally and therefore cheaper overall.

However, when drafting for global protection applicants should be aware that drafting strategies that work in some countries might not have the same result in others.

As an example, one strategy often used is to draft apparatus claims in the “means plus function” form. Claim features are described as “means for” carrying out the functionality of that feature, without specifying any particular structure for doing so. For example, a claim might list “means for filtering a signal [according to a certain method]”, “means for sending data” and so on.

At the EPO and in Japan such a claim formulation has the advantage of broadly claiming the subject matter in a functional manner. This type of claim is construed on face value to include any feature that performs the accompanying function.

In contrast, in the US such “means plus function” claims are construed more narrowly. Specifically these claims are limited to only cover the corresponding structure, material or acts described in the patent specification for performing the functional acts and any equivalents thereof. Therefore, means plus function claim language can be more limited in scope in the US and is not generally recommended (at least not for a sole independent claim). Instead, functional features should be labelled more appropriately and/or the structure of the means should be explicitly included in the claims.

China treads a path between these approaches, with the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and the Courts interpreting “means plus function” language differently in practice. This is demonstrated by the case Nokia Corporation vs Shanghai Huaqin Telecom Technology Co., Ltd. In this case the Re-examination board of the CNIPA interpreted “means plus function” style claims broadly, in line with the EPO approach. However, in the corresponding infringement proceedings, the court of first instance held that such claims were limited to the examples in the description and their equivalents, in line with the US approach. China therefore adopts the worst positions for the applicant for “means plus function” claims because the claims are construed broadly when comparing with the prior art for examination/invalidation but narrowly when considering infringement.

The solution here is to incorporate “means plus function” claim language into patent specifications at the drafting stage and make use of it in those jurisdictions where it is appropriate. The language can be included as numbered examples for instance. At the same time fall back claims that include more specific features and accompanying structural limitations should also be included for those jurisdictions where “means plus function” language is not appropriate.

At Reddie & Grose we draft patent applications with a view to smooth global prosecution in the IP5 offices and beyond. If you have any questions about our approach please get in contact.

This article is for general information only. Its content is not a statement of the law on any subject and does not constitute advice. Please contact Reddie & Grose LLP for advice before taking any action in reliance on it.

Pete Sadler
About the author

Would you like to know more? You can talk to Pete Sadler who will be able to help. Call +44 (0)20 7539 4454


Register for notifications
Enter your email address here to receive our monthly bulletin of IP news and developments.
    Please read our privacy notice.
Saved Staff
Staff member

Remove all

Saved profiles
Call +44 (0)20 7242 0901
Call +44 (0)1223 360 350
Call +49 (0) 89 206054 267
Call +(00) 31 70 800 2162