Court Rules E-Pass Handheld Patent Suit Can Resume
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has reversed the judgment of non-infringement that had been previously entered in the E-Pass v. Palm and 3Com patent litigation. The suit claims that Palm Inc, and subsequently other handheld manufacturers infringe on a E-pass patent.
The Federal Circuit’s decision, binding on all U.S. District Courts in the United States, held that the E-pass patent is not limited to a credit-card sized device, as Judge Jensen of the California District Court erroneously concluded in the Palm litigation. The Federal Circuit further held that Palm sized PDA’s could literally, as well as under the doctrine of equivalents, infringe the E-pass patent.
Last August, a federal court has ruled that Palm Inc. didn't infringe on a patent held by E-Pass Technologies . E-Pass filed suit in February 2000 alleging Palm infringed a 1994 patent and arguing that the company's handhelds were electronic, multifunction cards. The court decided that Palm did not infringe literally or under the broader Doctrine of Equivalents and granted its request for summary judgment.
A similar litigation against Microsoft and Compaq (now Hewlett Packard) in the U.S. District Court in Texas had been stayed pending the Federal Circuit decision. The basis for the stay is now over, the decision being binding upon the Texas court, and it is expected that both the Palm/3Com and Microsoft/Compaq litigations will resume sometime within the next four to six weeks.
E-Pass's patent (U.S. Patent No. 5,276,311) claim states, the object of the invention is to provide a method and device for substituting a single electronic multifunction card for a multiple credit cards. The abstract of the patent describes the invention as “an electronic multifunction card comprising a storage accommodating a plurality of individual data sets representing individual single-purpose cards, and comprising at least two display boxes in which data can be displayed by electronic activation.”
Now that the patent has been vindicated by the Federal Circuit in Washington. It is expected that E-pass will be filing additional patent infringement actions against handheld companies in the not-too distant future. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
Permalink
PrintArticle Comments
(19 comments)
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. PalmInfocenter is not responsible for them in any way.
Please Login or register here to add your comments.
Comments Closed
This article is no longer accepting new comments.
RE: Going after what
Notonly is the U.S. system decided upon old nontechinical people that have right be alove the U.S. Justice is also a money making business. Only in this country can innovation be smothered and shut out because another company claimed right to an idea that was never invented, researched, developed, nor even remotely close to what innovation might of been.
RE: Going after what
SHeesh!!
If you don't expect anything...
you won't be disappointed
MKD
RE: Going after what
> another company claimed right to an idea that was never invented, researched,
> developed, nor even remotely close to what innovation might of been.
That about covers it. I've got all kinds of great software ideas and would love to start my own company to develop them. There is not way in heck I would do it. The minute anything I developed became popular a gazillion people and companies would come out of the woodwork to sue me over whatever software patents they thought were remotely close to anything I did.
Whatever happened to the days when you had to build a physical model of what you were patenting to get a patent on it? That would eliminate software patents and patents for ideas that a company never builds.
RE: Going after what
Pat Horne; www.churchoflivingfaith.com
RE: Going after what
with the help of information technology, we can now gather many idea from different of the world. many idea come together to become a great idea, and many many idea now are very similar.
if i have enough money, I will apply the patent of all new devices mention in the sceintific novel. they are many many good idea inside the novel that may not have real product today but will be in the future. I will become rich if I own the patent of all of them.
stupid patent.
RE: Going after what
> I will apply the patent of all new devices mention in the sceintific novel.
My understanding of the way patents (at least used to) work is that you can't just patent an idea. You're really only supposed to be able to patent the implementation of an idea, which is why I mentioned about how you used to have to make a physical model of your patent in the past. IMHO, the biggest problems are with software patents and business practice patents. Both areas are well beyond the realm of what patents were originally supposed to contain.
Part of the problem with this patent in my opinion is that it sounds like it's one of those wonderful business practice (and/or software) patents. They're not just patenting the device (which, as most everyone here agrees, could be most any computing device) but the idea that you might use it to conduct transactions for more than one credit card account.
Is there any Palm in its default state that lets you do that anyhow?
Did Edison patent the idea of using the phonograph for playing music over the radio or at a dance club? I might grab those patents up.
When will patent attournies and judges get a clue?
Its ironic that they didn't sue Apple for the Newton (prior art), Sharp for the Zaurus (prior art), and a multitude of other electronic devices that incorporated displays that predated their "unique" idea.
Oh well, such is life in a democracy.
~ "Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed." - DV ~
RE: When will patent attournies and judges get a clue?
This is getting so retarded.. You can sue over anything now.
RE: When will patent attournies and judges get a clue?
You really CAN sue over anything, but that doesn't mean you'll win (And you'll likely end up paying damages to boot).
RE: When will patent attournies and judges get a clue?
Two points I would like to make:
1. Anyone who knows ANYTHING about PDA's knows that they do much more than store credit card information which, as near as I can tell is the only type of data that the E-Pass "vapourware" was meant to store. In fact, I dare say that one might have been able to buy organizers put out by Casio, Sharp and Radio Shack 15 years ago that you could store the same information on. How can any reasonably intelligent person view them as the same thing (i.e. "equivalent"), especially when one of them hasn't even been devloped yet?
2. Speaking of Sharp, since they and Apple came out with their handhelds (Zaurus and Newton) prior to the E-Pass patent, can they (and, more importantly, will they) file suit against E-Pass on the same grounds? That'd be funny....
RE: When will patent attournies and judges get a clue?
>(prior art), Sharp for the Zaurus (prior art), and a
>multitude of other electronic devices that incorporated
>displays that predated their "unique" idea.
If there is prior art, doesn't that invalidate the patent? I thought patents were valid to the originator of the idea.
Also, I can't think of a single PalmOS device whose form factor could be considered a "card." If a Palm III brick is a card, then is a laptop just a bigger card? And what the heck is a "display box?" Does the LCD on a Palm count as "at least two display boxes?" Definations, man definations!
Not only is ther prior art, but this patent seems to broad.
- Tere
RE: When will patent attournies and judges get a clue?
Every time I look Palm is getting sued for infringement on a patent that is a broad as the day is long. And each patent is for something at the very core of the Palm handheld. It started with the name (Pilot) then graffiti itself and now the handheld as a whole. This suit seems pretty ridiculous to me but on the other hand I thought the others were ridiculous too and at the end of the day no more 'Pilot', no more graffiti.
Maybe, just maybe, Palm has contributed to this by continuing to fold in the face of these types of suits.
In the Spirit of Umoja,
Ronin
RE: When will patent attournies and judges get a clue?
Maybe This LawSuit is Why...
Just a wild Guess with no supporting details. :-)
A Palm in one hand is worth 2 PocketPCs
: )
-Steve B.
Why?
Been to the E-Pass website?
They seem to be pleased - they are reviewing the patent to see what else they can sue over ...
"With a view towards the vigorous enforcement and protection of its intellectual property rights, E-pass is currently undergoing a thorough evaluation of all products and processes that might be covered by its patent, now that the patent has been vindicated by the Federal Circuit in Washington. It is expected that E-pass will be filing additional patent infringement actions in the not-too distant future."
Read the patent for kicks: http://makeashorterlink.com/?W3AD23FA5
If only someone in the judiciary or defense team would realize that such devices as the Apple Newton did the same things described in the first part of the patent - memory access - before the patent was filed. I think the whole thing is BS (read the patent) but A: I'm no lawyer, B: I'm biased, and C: the BS argument won't work, but prior art will ...
Let's see how they do against Microsoft ... their suit is pending. E-Pass also sued Compaq, now HP.
RE: Been to the E-Pass website?
RE: Been to the E-Pass website?
I can see where the last judge would feel that the doctrine of equivalents would fit and let the case go on. Looking at claim 1, a PDA can be said to roughly fit under that definition.
If Palm's lawyers have the slightest clue, they should be attacking this on two fronts to try to invalidate it. First by making a formal request to the PTO to review this patent. Second by actually bringing to court devices that predate this patent with similar functionality (and someone who was an "expert" from back then), and then invoke the obviousness clause. (The prior art may not be specific enough to completely invalidate the patent.)
I really do find it hard to believe that it hasn't been invalidated yet. After another look at the claims, pretty much anything with a computer chip could possibly fall under this under the doctrine of equivalents.
Latest Comments
- I got one -Tuckermaclain
- RE: Don't we have this already? -Tuckermaclain
- RE: Palm brand will return in 2018, with devices built by TCL -richf
- RE: Palm brand will return in 2018, with devices built by TCL -dmitrygr
- Palm phone on HDblog -palmato
- Palm PVG100 -hgoldner
- RE: Like Deja Vu -PacManFoo
- Like Deja Vu -T_W
Going after what
M$ offered them 10 million, that wasn't enough. Maybe 50 bucks per handheld made by everyone forever? Talk about a technology limiting patent.
Sure, I'm being sarcastic - a bit over the top. The question is, is it E-Pass's fault for being this way or the system for allowing patents on such a wide subject?