Lacking Disclosure Of An Algorithm For Performing The Recited Computer Function, Means-Plus-Function Claim Is Indefinite
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.28.08
In Net Moneyin, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc. (No. 07-1565; October 20, 2008), the Federal Circuit affirms a district court's judgment that certain disputed claims were invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6, but reverses the summary judgment that another disputed claim was invalid as anticipated by prior art.
The claims related to systems for processing credit card transactions over the Internet. Certain of the claims included means-plus-function limitations. At issue was whether the specification disclosed structure corresponding to the "means for generating an authorization indicia" limitation. Since the specification only disclosed a general purpose computer, without disclosing an algorithm for performing the claimed function, the Court affirms the indefiniteness of the claims.
The Court also clarifies what a reference must show in order to anticipate a claimed invention. As previous Federal Circuit decisions have stated, in order to demonstrate anticipation, the patent challenger must show "that the four corners of a single, prior art document describe every element of the claimed invention." As the Court clarifies in the present case, however, the prior art must disclose all of the elements of the claim "arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim." Because the district court combined two separate examples disclosed in the prior art reference to find all of the claimed elements, the Court reverses the finding of invalidity.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
