Ordinary Meaning Carries the Day

E-Pass Technologies, Inc. v. 3-Com Corporation, [2006-1356, -1357, -1358](January 12, 2007)[LINN, Michel, and Prost]
BRIEF: E-Pass appealed from summary judgment of non-infringement of a patent on a single electronic card for replacing a plurality of credit cards. The Federal Circuit previously remanded the case because the district court’s construction of card as “having the width and outer dimensions of a standard credit card” was too narrow. On remand the district court granted summary judgment that Palm’s electronic devices do not fall within the ordinary meaning of “card”. The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court decision on literal infringement, as to the doctrine of equivalents, the Federal Circuit found the district court’s conclusion too summary. The Federal Circuit noted that under the all elements rule, the doctrine of equivalents must be applied to individual elements of the claim, not to the invention as a whole. And that the all elements rule may foreclose resort to equivalents where the evidence is such that no reasonable jury could conclude that tan element of an accused device is equivalent to an element called for in the claim. However the Federal Circuit said that the it did not have to decide equivalents because E-Pass failed to prove that the claimed method had actually been performed.