1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |At Least One Said Index" Is Identical To "Said At Least One Index

At Least One Said Index" Is Identical To "Said At Least One Index

Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.10.08

An amendment changing a software claim term from "said at least one index" to "at least one said index" does not broaden the scope of the claim, a Federal Circuit panel concludes in Predicate Logic, Inc. v. Distributive Software, Inc. (No. 2007-1539; October 9, 2008).

The amendment was one of two made by an Examiner during reexamination of the patent at issue. In a motion for summary judgment, the defendant, Distributive Software, Inc. argued that the subtle change in wording impermissibly enlarged the scope of the claim and thereby rendered the reexamined patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 305. After conducting a meticulous analysis that included a hypothetical example, the Federal Circuit determines that it "can imagine no conceivable process . . . that would infringe the amended claim but would not infringe the original claim." Applying this test, which is the same test used for reissue claims, the Court determines that the amended claim does not broaden the scope of the original claim and the district court's finding of invalidity is reversed.

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