直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Article

The Role of Intrinsic Evidence in Construing Means-Plus-Function After Williamson

March/April 2020

IP Litigator

By Daniel C. Cooley; Alexander E. Harding

Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (or pre- AIA § 112 ¶ 6), claims can be written in a “means-plus-function” format. In a typical case, means-plus-function claims recite a “means for [performing some function]” and cover only those structures in the patent’s specification capable of performing that function. Limitations that do not use the word “means” can still be treated as means-plus-function limitations if they do not “recite sufficiently definite structure.” This can be a problem if the patent drafter did not intend its claim terms to be treated as “means-plus-function” and failed to disclose the necessary structure in the specification. In such cases, a means-plus-function construction can be fatal.

Until 2015, there was a “strong presumption” that claim limitations, which did not expressly recite the word “means” or “step” should not invoke means-plus-function treatment under § 112(f). But in the face of increasingly functional software claiming, an en-banc Federal Circuit in Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC removed the heightened evidentiary showing. Under Williamson, “the presumption can be overcome and § 112, ¶ 6 will apply if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to ‘recite sufficiently definite structure’ or else recites ‘function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.’” In the immediate aftermath of Williamson, some practitioners noted the court’s holding may “affect the scope and validity of claims for tens of thousands of patents in a way unintended by the drafters of those claims.”

Now five years later, various cases have relied on Williamson and applied Williamson’s standards to specific fact patterns. In this article, Finnegan attorneys Dan Cooley and Alex Harding explore the nuances of two such cases where the Federal Circuit analyzed the intrinsic record—the claim language, specification, and prosecution history—to reach different conclusions under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).

Read the full article here. 

Tags

means-plus-function claim, Williamson v. Citrix Online

Downloadable Files

  • PUBLISHED - IP Litigator - The Role of Intrinsic Evidence in Con

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Related Offices

Washington, DC

Related Professionals

Daniel C. Cooley
Partner
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2778
Email
Alexander E. Harding
Associate
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4324
Email

Reprinted with permission from the IP Litigator, published by Wolters Kluwer. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm’s clients.

Related Insights

Conference

IAM Live: Navigating the UPC 2026

November 3, 2026

Paris

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – California

October 19-20, 2026

San Francisco

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – New York

September 28-29, 2026

New York

Conference

13th Annual Summit for Women Leaders in Life Sciences Law

July 29-30, 2026

Boston

Webinar

Successful Strategies to Win Alice Motions and Fee Awards in Patent Cases Against Non-Practicing Entities

July 22, 2026

Webinar

Conference

2026 China Pharmaceutical Innovation Conference

July 22-24, 2026

Shanghai

Webinar

Early Motions in Trade Secret Litigation – Offensive and Defensive Insights

July 15, 2026

Webinar

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands Infringement and Damages Judgment After Erroneous Verdict Form and Eligibility Analysis

July 8, 2026

Webinar

Inventive Step in Europe and the US: Comparing the UPC, EPO and National Approaches

July 8, 2026

Webinar

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP