United States: Claim Terms Are Not Limited by Industry Standard Meaning

The Federal Circuit recently overturned a grant of summary judgment in favor of 3Com, holding that the district court erroneously restricted a claim limitation to the industry standard meaning of a term rather than giving the term its plain, every day meaning. E-Pass Technologies, Inc. v. 3Com Corp., Case No. 02-1593 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 20, 2003).

The case involves 3Com’s popular "Palm Pilot" personal digital assistants and accusations that it infringes patent claims drawn to the use of an "electronic multi-function card." Based in part on a discussion in the specification, and also on the industry standard usage of the term "card" at the time the patent was issued, the district court interpreted the term "card" to mean a component having the dimensions of a standard credit card. Observing that the district court had given too much weight to the specification’s discussion of the "objects of the invention" and too little weight to the strong presumption in favor of giving terms their "ordinary and customary meaning," the Federal Circuit found this to be an error of construction and held that the ordinary meaning of the term "card" should apply (that is, a flat, rectangular piece of material).

According to the Court, there was nothing in the claim language or the steps of the method that suggest a size limitation, and the Court found nothing in the industry standards to suggest that they "apply outside the limited area of credit cards, i.e., to cards generally or to electronic multifunction cards, or that either was intended to define the term ‘card’ or ‘electronic multifunction card.’" Absent a clear statement of intent by the inventor to narrow the meaning of a claim, the Court determined, the claim should be given the broadest meaning consistent with customary usage.