E-Pass Technologies, Inc. v. 3Com Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 112
Relies on MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al. · Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. · Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic Inc · Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-Cross · Southwall Technologies, Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] device having the width and outer dimensions of a standard credit card with an embedded electronic circuit allowing for the conversion of the card to the form and function of at least two different single-purpose cards,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]n invention that requires one to carry one more card of irregular size may have some economic viability as a curiosity, but it can hardly be described as a device `for simplifying the use of ... credit cards.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“used over 280 times in the patent ... in reference to a `plurality of cards' or to specific `single-purpose' cards that people typically carry ... [or] in reference to the `electronic multi-function card.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.