Better Mouse Co LLC v. Vtin Technology Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:

  • Plaintiff: Better Mouse Company, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Vtin Technology Co., Ltd (Hong Kong)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Insight, PLC; Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC

• Case Identification: 2:20-cv-10269, C.D. Cal., 11/09/2020

• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining a place of business within the Central District of California and committing the alleged acts of infringement in the district.

• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s gaming mice infringe a patent related to the use of an on-device hardware switch for adjusting the mouse's dots-per-inch (DPI) resolution without requiring external software.

• Technical Context: The technology enables "on-the-fly" sensitivity adjustment, a feature valued in the computer peripheral market, particularly for gaming, where users may need to rapidly switch between high-precision and high-speed cursor movements.

• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,532,200 - “Apparatus for Setting Multi-Stage Displacement Resolution of a Mouse”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,532,200, “Apparatus for Setting Multi-Stage Displacement Resolution of a Mouse,” issued May 12, 2009.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the inconvenience of adjusting a computer mouse's resolution by conventional means, which required installing and navigating a a software driver or tool on the host computer. This process could be difficult for users, and impossible if the software media was lost (’200 Patent, col. 1:15-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an apparatus contained entirely within the mouse that allows a user to set the resolution directly. It includes a physical switching circuit that a user can manually adjust. A mouse microcontroller reads the state of the switch, determines the corresponding resolution value, stores it in an internal register, and subsequently uses that stored value to control cursor movement, all without interaction with a software driver on the computer for the purpose of setting resolution ('200 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:34-55). Figure 1 of the patent illustrates the key components, including the switching circuit (3) providing input to the mouse microcontroller (4) ('200 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This design allows for direct, "on-the-fly" hardware-based adjustment of mouse sensitivity, a valuable feature for users who need to quickly change cursor performance characteristics for different tasks, such as computer gaming (Compl. ¶6).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 6 of the ’200 Patent (Compl. ¶12).
• The essential elements of independent Claim 6 include:
  • A "X-Y axis plane displacement detector" for sensing mouse movement.
  • An "N-stage switch" with a "switching button" that can be manually switched to one of "N" positions to activate a "resolution setting pin" indicating a state.
  • A "mouse micro controller with a register" that is coupled to both the detector and the switch. The microcontroller determines and sets the resolution based on the switch's state, stores that resolution value in the register, and uses the stored value to provide a control signal to the computer for moving the cursor.
• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the patent, suggesting the right to assert other claims may be reserved (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the "VicTsing PC006 Gaming Mouse" as an exemplary accused product, along with other similar devices (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused product is a wireless gaming mouse that allows users to adjust sensitivity among five different levels (e.g., 800, 1200, 1600, 2000, 2400 DPI) (Compl. p.5). This adjustment is performed by pressing a "switch button on top of Mouse" (Compl. p.8). The complaint includes a product screenshot from Defendant's website advertising this "Adjustable DPI" feature. (Compl. p.5, "VicTsing Wireless Gaming Mouse"). It also includes teardown photographs purporting to show the internal components, including the physical switch and microcontroller circuit board (Compl. pp.6-7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’200 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: Claim 6 recites an "N-stage switch... capable of being manually switched to one of positions 1 to N." A central question may be whether the accused product's single push-button, which appears to cycle through a set of five DPI settings, meets this limitation. The patent's embodiments depict multi-position switches like DIP switches or sliders ('200 Patent, Figs. 2, 4), which could suggest that a switch must have N physically distinct and selectable positions. The court will need to determine if a cycling push-button falls within the scope of this language.
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the accused microcontroller determines resolution based on "the state of the connected resolution setting pins" and stores the value in a "register" (Compl. ¶¶15-16). While teardown photos are provided, the complaint does not present detailed technical analysis (e.g., from circuit analysis or firmware reverse engineering) to demonstrate this specific internal operation. A key evidentiary issue may be whether the plaintiff can prove this precise functionality, as opposed to an alternative technical implementation that achieves a similar result. The photograph of the internal switch shows a component that is alleged to be the claimed switch (Compl. p.6).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "N-stage switch"
• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical. The infringement analysis may turn on whether a single button that cycles through N predefined states is equivalent to a switch with N discrete, user-selectable physical positions. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused product's physical implementation (a cycling button) differs from the primary embodiments described in the patent (DIP switches, multi-position sliders).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's summary states an object is to provide an apparatus to "set the mouse resolution directly through a switch of the mouse" ('200 Patent, col. 2:39-41). This more general language could be argued to encompass any physical switch mechanism on the mouse that achieves the N-stage selection function.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description explicitly discusses embodiments using a "DIP (Dual In-line Package) switch" ('200 Patent, col. 3:20-22) and an "N-stage switch" where a button is "switched to position [i] (i=1~N)" ('200 Patent, col. 3:23-26). This language, along with Figures 2 and 4, may support an interpretation that requires a switch with multiple, physically distinct positions that the user can select.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks a judgment of direct and/or indirect infringement (Compl. Prayer ¶A). However, the body of the complaint does not articulate a separate count or plead specific facts to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement, such as allegations of Defendant's knowledge of the patent coupled with acts encouraging infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint requests enhanced damages for willful infringement (Compl. Prayer ¶B). The complaint does not, however, plead any facts to support this allegation, such as pre-suit knowledge of the ’200 Patent or conduct rising to the level of objective recklessness.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "N-stage switch... capable of being manually switched to one of positions 1 to N," which is described in the patent's embodiments as a multi-position selector, be construed to cover the accused product's single push-button that cycles through a sequence of resolution settings?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: can the plaintiff produce evidence, beyond the photographs and conclusory allegations in the complaint, to demonstrate that the accused mouse's internal circuitry operates exactly as required by the claim—specifically, that its microcontroller uses "resolution setting pins" to determine a resolution value and stores that specific value in a "register" for direct use in controlling the cursor?