DCT
2:17-cv-05923
Gamevice Inc v. Nintendo Co Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Gamevice, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Nintendo Co., Ltd. (Japan) and Nintendo of America, Inc. (Washington)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
- Case Identification: 2:17-cv-05923, C.D. Cal., 08/09/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Nintendo has committed acts of infringement in the district and has a regular and established place of business there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Nintendo Switch gaming console, with its detachable Joy-Con controllers, infringes a patent related to a combination computing device and game controller.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns peripherals that add physical gaming controls to general-purpose computing devices like tablets and smartphones, addressing the limitations of on-screen touch controls for complex games.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a history of innovation by Plaintiff, including the 2008 Wikipad and the 2015 Gamevice controller. A subsequently issued Inter Partes Review Certificate for the patent-in-suit, provided with the patent documentation, indicates that two IPR proceedings (IPR2018-01521 and IPR2018-01522) resulted in the cancellation of claims 1-10 and 13-21 of the patent. The complaint asserts infringement of claim 1.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-12-20 | U.S. Patent No. 9,126,119 Priority Date |
| 2015-09-08 | U.S. Patent No. 9,126,119 Issue Date |
| 2016-10-20 | Nintendo Switch Unveiling Date |
| 2017-08-09 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,126,119 - "Combination Computing Device and Game Controller with Flexible Bridge Section"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,126,119, issued September 8, 2015.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint describes a problem where games on tablets or smartphones require users to use touch-sensitive on-screen controls, which can occupy "valuable screen space" and offer a suboptimal gaming experience compared to dedicated physical controls (Compl. ¶14).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a peripheral game controller designed to attach to a separate computing device (e.g., a tablet) (’119 Patent, Abstract). The controller features two side portions with physical controls that grip the opposing sides of the computing device, connected by a structural bridge that runs behind the device (’119 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 3:20-41). A key aspect of the invention is the structural relationship between the "input device" (the controller grips) and a "communication port" that provides both a physical connection ("confinement structures") and an electronic link to the computing device (’119 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: This design allows for the addition of robust, physical gaming controls to a general-purpose computing device without permanently altering the device or obscuring the display screen (’119 Patent, col. 2:53-65).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶20).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A computing device with sides between its screen and back.
- A communication port that interacts with the computing device, providing a communication link and confinement structures that grip at least two opposing sides of the device.
- An input device with a pair of control modules, attached to and in electronic communication with the communication port.
- The input device being a "separate and distinct structure from the communication port, forming no structural portion of the communication port."
- A structural bridge securing the pair of confinement structures to each other.
- The bridge comprising a conduit between the control modules and a fastening mechanism.
- The complaint reserves the right to modify its infringement description and potentially assert other claims (Compl. ¶¶14-16).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The Nintendo Switch gaming console, including the central tablet-like "computing device" and the detachable "Joy-Con" controllers (Compl. ¶¶11, 17).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Nintendo Switch is described as a hybrid console that can be played on a television via a dock or as a mobile, handheld device (Compl. ¶17). For mobile play, users "attach the two Joy Con controllers to rails on each side of the Switch console, creating a mobile, handheld gaming device" (Compl. p. 6:1-3). The complaint presents this configuration as the primary infringing use (Compl. ¶20). An image provided in the complaint shows the Nintendo Switch in its handheld configuration with Joy-Cons attached. (Compl. p. 9).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’119 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a computing device, the computing device providing a plurality of sides, each of the plurality of sides are disposed between an electronic display screen of the computing device and a back of the computing device | The Nintendo Switch console is alleged to be a computing device in the form of an electronic tablet with sides between its screen and back. | ¶20(b) | col. 9:63-66 |
| a communication port interacting with the computing device, the communication port providing a communication link and a pair of confinement structures, the pair of confinement structures adjacent to and confining the computing device on at least two opposing sides... | The Nintendo Switch is alleged to have a communications port with a communication link and confinement structures. A teardown photograph identifies the internal frame and electrical connectors as these structures. (Compl. p. 7). | ¶20(c) | col. 10:1-7 |
| an input device attached to and in electronic communication with the communication port | The two Joy-Con control modules are alleged to be an input device in electronic communication with the communication port via reciprocal connectors. An image shows the internal electrical connection point. (Compl. p. 8). | ¶20(d)(i) | col. 10:8-10 |
| ...the input device providing a pair of control modules... wherein the input device is a separate and distinct structure from the communication port, forming no structural portion of the communication port | The complaint asserts the Joy-Cons are a pair of control modules that are "separate and distinct" from the other components that make up the communication port. A photograph shows the disassembled Joy-Con components. (Compl. p. 9). | ¶20(d)(ii) | col. 10:11-21 |
| a structural bridge securing the pair of confinement structures one to the other | The complaint alleges that the Nintendo Switch includes a "structural bridge" connecting the two confinement structures. A teardown photograph highlights a central metal plate within the device as this bridge. (Compl. p. 10). | ¶20(e)(i) | col. 10:22-24 |
| ...the structural bridge comprising: a conduit between the pair of control modules; and a fastening mechanism cooperating with the pair of confinement structures... | The complaint alleges the structural bridge comprises a conduit (pathway) and a fastening mechanism (screws) securing the confinement structures. Teardown photographs identify these alleged components. (Compl. p. 11). | ¶20(f)(i)-(ii) | col. 10:26-30 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges that internal components of the Switch console itself (e.g., the central metal plate) constitute the "structural bridge" and "confinement structures" of the claimed "communication port." A central question will be whether the "communication port" and "structural bridge," as defined in the patent, can be construed to read on integral components of the computing device itself, rather than components of a separate, attachable controller accessory.
- Technical Questions: A key technical question is whether the Joy-Con controllers are "a separate and distinct structure from the communication port, forming no structural portion of the communication port" as required by claim 1. The complaint alleges the Switch's side rails are part of the "confinement structures" of the communication port (Compl. ¶20(c), p. 7 photograph). Since the Joy-Cons are designed to slide onto and mechanically mate with these rails, a court may need to determine if this integral mechanical mating prevents the Joy-Con from being "separate and distinct" from, or "forming no structural portion of," the communication port.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "communication port"
Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical because the claim requires the "input device" (the Joy-Cons) to be a "separate and distinct structure" from it. The complaint appears to define the "communication port" as including the internal "confinement structures" and "communication link" within the main Switch console (Compl. ¶20(c)). Practitioners may focus on whether this term should be construed as part of the attachable controller (as suggested by patent figures like Fig. 16, element 310) or as part of the computing device itself.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the communication port as "interacting with the computing device" (’119 Patent, col. 2:20), which may suggest it is not necessarily an integral part of the computing device.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent abstract states the port provides "confinement structures... confining the computing device," which could be read to mean the port is the structure that holds the device, implying it is part of the controller accessory, not the computing device being held.
The Term: "input device is a separate and distinct structure from the communication port, forming no structural portion of the communication port"
Context and Importance: This negative limitation is central to the infringement analysis. If the Joy-Cons are found to form a structural part of the communication port (e.g., through the rail system), infringement would be avoided. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears intended to distinguish the invention from designs where controller halves are integrated with the structure that holds the device.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (i.e., easier to find separation): The patent abstract describes the "input device attached to and in electronic communication with the communication port," language that implies two separate but interacting items (’119 Patent, Abstract). Figure 16 shows an input device (318) that attaches to a communication port (310), supporting the concept of separateness.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (i.e., harder to find separation): The specification's focus on securely "confining" the computing device could imply that any structure essential to the physical attachment and security of that connection is part of the "communication port," which could potentially include the mating structures on the Joy-Cons themselves.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Nintendo induces infringement by its retail partners and end-users, asserting that Nintendo acts with "knowledge of or willful blindness to the fact that its actions will induce" infringement (Compl. ¶23).
- Willful Infringement: The basis for willfulness is alleged knowledge of infringement acquired "at least as early as the filing and service of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶21-22). No pre-suit knowledge is alleged.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A core issue will be one of claim scope and interpretation: Can the claimed "communication port," "structural bridge," and "confinement structures" be construed to read on the internal components of the Nintendo Switch console itself, or does the patent require these to be elements of a separate, add-on accessory that attaches to a general-purpose computing device?
A second dispositive issue will be the separateness of the components: Does the integrated rail-and-connector system of the Nintendo Switch and Joy-Cons mean the Joy-Con "input device" is not a "separate and distinct structure" from the "communication port," as required by the negative limitation in claim 1?
The most significant overarching question, arising from procedural history subsequent to the complaint, is the viability of the asserted patent: Given that an Inter Partes Review Certificate documents the cancellation of asserted claim 1 (along with most other claims), the fundamental question is whether the plaintiff has any surviving basis for its infringement action under this patent.