Opinion ID: 210871
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Introduction and Prior Appeal

Text: 2 As we discussed in a prior appeal in this case, 3 E-Pass is the assignee of the '311 patent, entitled Method and Device for Simplifying the Use of a Plurality of Credit Cards, or the Like. The object of the invention is to provide a method and device for substituting a single electronic multifunction card for multiple credit cards.... To address problems associated with carrying multiple cards, the user needs, and is required to carry about, [only] a single card. 4 E-Pass Techs. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1365 (Fed.Cir.2004) ( E-Pass I ) (quoting '311 patent, col. 1, ll. 64-66). Claim 1 of the '311 patent, the only independent claim asserted in this litigation, reads as follows: 5 A method for enabling a user of an electronic multi-function card to select data from a plurality of data sources such as credit cards, check cards, customer cards, identity cards, documents, keys, access information and master keys comprising the steps of: 6 transferring a data set from each of the plurality of data sources to the multi-function card; 7 storing said transferred data set from each of the plurality of data sources in the multi-function card; 8 assigning a secret code to activate the multi-function card; 9 entering said secret code into the multi-function card to activate the same; 10 selecting with said activated multi-function card a select one of said data sets; and 11 displaying on the multi-function card in at least one predetermined display area the data of said selected data set. 12 '311 patent, col. 10, l. 54-col. 11, l. 3. 13 On February 28, 2000, E-Pass filed a complaint for patent infringement against 3Com Corporation and Palm, Inc. (collectively, 3Com). In it, E-Pass accused 3Com of inducing consumers to practice the steps of the patented method on its Palm VII and Palm VIIx personal digital assistant (PDA) products. Following a claim construction that construed electronic multi-function card to be [a] device having the width and outer dimensions of a standard credit card with an embedded electronic circuit allowing for the conversion of the card to the form and function of at least two different single-purpose cards, E-Pass Techs. v. 3Com Inc., 177 F.Supp.2d 1033, 1037 (N.D.Cal. 2001), the district court granted 3Com's motion for summary judgment of noninfringement both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, E-Pass Techs. v. 3Com Corp., 222 F.Supp.2d 1157, 1165 (N.D.Cal.2002). 14 E-Pass appealed. On appeal, we held that the district court had erred by requiring the dimensions of a standard credit card. E-Pass I, 343 F.3d at 1371. We observed that the ordinary meaning of the word `card' here, as used in the phrase `electronic multi-function card,' is the proper construction, and we vacated and remanded to the district court to address the issue of infringement under the proper construction. Id. at 1370-71. Notably, we emphasized that it may be or may not be that the accused Palm Pilot devices literally infringe under that construction. Id. at 1371.