## Facts

- Net MoneyIN, Inc. owned two patents directed to Internet-based electronic payment processing systems designed to address online transaction security and merchant-payment processing constraints.
- Net MoneyIN sued VeriSign, Inc. and multiple other payment and e-commerce entities for patent infringement.
- A key claim on appeal (claim 23 of one patent) described a system architecture with four computers (customer, merchant, payment processor, and credit-card server) connected through five communication links.
- Defendants relied on a 1995 printed publication describing an Internet payment protocol, which contained multiple examples relevant to online payment security and processing.
- The district court held certain claims invalid for indefiniteness based on means-plus-function limitations lacking disclosed corresponding structure, granted summary judgment that claim 23 was anticipated by the 1995 publication, and denied leave to amend the complaint to add inducement of infringement.

## Issues

1. Whether certain means-plus-function claims were indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 because the specification failed to disclose corresponding structure for the claimed functions.
2. Whether claim 23 was anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) when the anticipation finding depended on combining disclosures from separate examples within a single printed publication, where no single example disclosed all limitations arranged as claimed.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend the complaint to add an inducement of infringement claim.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidity findings that claims 1, 13, and 14 of one patent and claim 1 of the other were indefinite under § 112 ¶ 2 due to missing corresponding structure for means-plus-function limitations.
- The Federal Circuit reversed the summary judgment of anticipation of claim 23, holding the district court applied an incorrect legal standard by effectively reconstructing the claim through isolated disclosures rather than identifying a disclosure of all limitations arranged as in the claim.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of leave to amend to add an inducement claim, finding no abuse of discretion.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the correct anticipation standard.

## Legal Principles

- For means-plus-function limitations, the specification must disclose corresponding structure linked to the recited function; for computer-implemented functions, disclosure typically must include an algorithm or equivalent structural description, not merely a general-purpose computer.
- Anticipation by a printed publication requires that a single reference disclose every claim limitation and disclose the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim.
- Anticipation does not permit “picking and choosing” among isolated, unrelated disclosures within a reference to assemble the claimed invention; that approach resembles obviousness, not anticipation.
- Denial of leave to amend is reviewed for abuse of discretion; late amendments may be denied where timing and prejudice to opposing parties support case-management concerns.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit upheld indefiniteness for computer-implemented means-plus-function claims lacking disclosed structure and upheld denial of a late inducement amendment, but reversed an anticipation judgment because anticipation requires a clear disclosure of all claim limitations arranged as claimed, not an assembly of isolated disclosures from separate examples within a reference.


Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008)