1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Lacking Disclosure Of An Algorithm For Performing The Recited Computer Function, Means-Plus-Function Claim Is Indefinite

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 | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights