E-Pass Technologies v. 3com Corporation (Also Known as 3com)

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that, “because the language of most of the steps of its method claim refer to the completed results of the prior step, E-Pass must show that ail of those steps were performed in order”
• “Accordingly, it requires too speculative a leap to conclude that any customer actually performed the claimed method.”
• affirming summary judgment of non-infringement where no direct infringement by a customer was established and the defendant’s product manual did not teach customers to perform the method steps in the order required to infringe
• “the terms courts use to enunciate the proper construction of a claim are not themselves limitations that require interpretation”
• “[A]ny articulated definition of a claim term ultimately must relate to the infringement questions that it is intended to answer.”
• “By vacating we signaled that, although the district court’s prior decision rested upon erroneous grounds, a proper claim construction might support a judgment (summary or otherwise

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).