E-Pass Can Resue Patent Case Against Palm

kisrael writes "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled that a patent held by E-Pass may have been infringed by Palm and other PDA makers even though their devices are larger than 'credit-card sized.' The 1994 patent describes a 'multifunction, credit card-sized computer that allows users to securely store a multitude of account numbers, PIN codes, access information and other data from multiple credit cards, check cards, identification cards and similar personal documents.'"

Comments

That judge needs a dictionary

[dtolton]

That's just what we need, another patent case gone wrong. This whole
concept of allowing patents on a concept is crazy. Whatever happened
to the american dream of building a better mouse trap? In this day
an age it seems someone could patent the idea of catching mice, and
if you attempt to build a better one, you better watch out.

I find it suprising that a judge would say "credit card sized"
doesn't really mean "credit card sized", he actually agreed with
E-Pass that it's simply a generic term for a small computer!!

Somehow, the country needs to be mobilized against this more
expansive more generic term of patents. It used to be that your
device had to be 20% different than a patented device. It seems now
though, it just has to be vaguely the same as the concept patented,
and you could be infringing. Of course the judge didn't specifically
rule in favor of E-Pass, rather he just said the District judge was
incorrect when he threw out the case based on size. So it seems like
now there is caselaw that allows you to argue that a very specific
wording in your patent like "credit card sized" can instead be
applied generically to small.

More fun times with the legal system.

Re:That judge needs a dictionary

[justsomebody]

Main problem with generic terms used as patents is that if they prevail, all that people should do is register idea that is not possible yet, but it's possible in the future and wait for progress, then sue everybody.

Patent cases without exact blueprints or without real product should never be considered as proof. So if someone registers a "something car-sized used for transportation, but using nature friendly material, that works something like a common fuel" he can sue anybody that would try to make a progress on car technologies.

In my opinion patents should have exact blueprints and timeline as obligate in order to make possible to differentiate that 20%.

Re:That judge needs a dictionary

[brianosaurus]

A patent is supposed to contain enough information about the invention that a knowledgable person in the field could build one based on the description in the document. Anything less should not be patentable.

In 1994 the only possibly interesting thing about a "credit-card sized computer that can store [data] and access [data]" is that it is credit-card sized. Take that away, as the judge did, and the rest is just a computer.

By 1994 I already owned an Apple Newton which could store and access data. My major complaint at the time was that it was too big. I knew eventually it could be made smaller, since that's just how computers go (better, faster, smaller). Based on that I say "credit-card sized" doesn't make this patentable, since that's just a matter of time making that possible. E-Pass didn't come up with the idea of making things smaller, and making a smaller computer has always been an insanely obvious thing to do.

I think by expanding this patent by removing the "credit card sized" restriction, they're simply exposing it as something that can and should be easily defeated by abundant prior art, as others have said, in the multitude of computers that had been created before 1994.

Man, talk about vague...

[WIAKywbfatw]

If a Palm or Pocket PC device qualifies even though it's larger than credit-card sized, then so does the human brain and we're all guilty of patent violation.

After all, the human brain is a "computer" that allows its user to "securely store a multitude of account numbers, PIN codes, access information and other data from multiple credit cards, check cards, identification cards and similar personal documents".

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The USPTO is a joke.

Doubtful they will succeed

[vanyel]

You never know with our legal system, but the E-pass patent is much too specific, detailing a device specifically designed to hold credit card numbers and pins, not a general purpose computer as pda's are. While the judge is probably right that exact size alone isn't reason to throw out the case, I don't think they'll win on the merits.

pathetic patents

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I used to think that it was just software patents that were ridiculous, but more and more I think the patent system is just totally fucked in general. The patent in the article in question is:

"multifunction, credit card-sized computer that allows users to securely store a multitude of account numbers, PIN codes, access information and other data from multiple credit cards, check cards, identification cards and similar personal documents"

This is a patent on a small computer. And in what way is this innovative enough to warrant a freaking patent? The other day I had to hook up two cables but had two male ends. So I dig in my parts box and get a gender changer - lo and behold there's a freaking patent number on it. Simply put there are very few things that are drastically different now days to typically warrant a patent at all. Most patents now days are simply ridiculous rehashing of things that have existed for years but in different places, with different uses, or merely different sizes and shapes. If anything, the current patent system is just choking modern innovation.

Re:the opposite of over-general patents

[aussersterne]

Why not just patent "a set of computer instructions organized in such a way as to represent one or several algorithms for performing some specific function or set of functions related to data manipulation, analysis, representation and storage."

In other words, why not just patent software? Then anything anyone did with modern technology would be yours...

It seems that US Patent office is an international joke. How can you patent a concept? In some cases, it's not even a concept, it seems that people are out there patenting their brainstorms. They provide few or no implementation details or defining characteristics for the device or process they propose to patent; instead they simply state a broad type of functionality and are granted a patent on it.

Think about it... People are essentially patenting any problem they can think of. Somebody may someday need to get water to higher ground but won't have room for any extra pipe in their installation. So we'll patent "method for distributing large amounts of low viscosity liquied to higher elevations without the use of piping or tubing." Someone else may need a heart monitor that can run while the power is out, so we'll patent "method for measuring consistent bodily function in the absence of availability of electricity" and so on and so on.

Anyone else happens to actually solve one of these problems with their hard work, and *boom*, they get sued for having actually produced something, for actually having solved the problem! Instead if them being rewarded in any way by a grateful society, the patent owner alone gets rich, because they already patented the solution to that problem in general terms, whatever it may be.

And of course who has the time and resources to file patent after patent after patent? Large companies and concerns supported by venture capitalists. The rich get richer in essence because there is a government agency through which they can pre-emptively say "All your base are belong to us!"

Re:Prior Art?

[servoled]

Most of the prior art cited here doesn't even come close to meeting the invention as described in the claims. Most people here read the abstract (which is nothing more than a summary of the invention) and then use a summary of the abstract to cite examples of prior art.

A lot of the prior art cited around here also seems to be based on the date that the patent was issued, instead of the filing date (or priority date) or the patent. In order for something to be prior art it must meet the requirements as set forth in the claims and have been publicly known before the filing (or priority) date of the patent in question.