E-Pass Technologies, Inc. v. 3com Corporation (Also Known as 3com, Inc.) and Palm, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• vacating district court’s claim construction for limiting claims “in light of the perceived purpose served by the invention”
• using Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, and the Oxford English Dictionary to determine the ordinary meaning of the term “card”
• “The court’s task is not to limit claim language to exclude particular devices because they do not serve a perceived ‘purpose’ of the invention.”
• “[T]his court has often repeated that inventor testimony is of little probative value for the purposes of claim construction.”
• cautioning against “importing limitations from the specifications into the claims”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).