DCT
4:02-cv-00710
Immersion Corp v. Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Immersion Corporation (Delaware)
- Defendant: Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. (Delaware); Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. (Japan); Microsoft Corporation (Washington)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Irell & Manella LLP
- Case Identification: 4:02-cv-00710, N.D. Cal., 02/11/2002
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants SCEA and Microsoft reside and have regular and established places of business in the district, Defendant SCE is an alien corporation, and all Defendants have allegedly placed infringing products into the stream of commerce knowing they would be shipped into the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ video game systems and peripherals, including the Sony PlayStation and Microsoft Xbox product lines, infringe patents related to programmable haptic feedback technology.
- Technical Context: The patents relate to haptic or tactile feedback, a technology that enables users to interact with computers and other electronic devices through the sense of touch, which is particularly significant for creating immersive experiences in video gaming.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or other significant procedural events related to the patents-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1991-10-24 | ’672 Patent Priority Date |
| 1995-11-30 | ’213 Patent Priority Date |
| 1999-03-30 | ’672 Patent Issue Date |
| 2001-08-14 | ’213 Patent Issue Date |
| 2002-02-11 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 5,889,672 - "Tactiley Responsive User Interface Device and Method Therefor"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the limitations of user interface devices that rely on fixed mechanical detents (i.e., "clicks") for tactile feedback, such as those used in professional video editing. These mechanical systems are inflexible—requiring different hardware for different standards (e.g., 24 versus 30 frames per second)—and are subject to wear and degradation over time (’672 Patent, col. 2:10-33).
- The Patented Solution: The invention replaces mechanical feedback mechanisms with an electronically controlled and programmable system. As illustrated in the block diagram of Figure 2, the system uses a servo motor (116) coupled to a user-manipulated control knob (114). A position encoder (118) tracks the knob's movement and sends this information to a controller (120), which accesses stored "torque-position relation information" to generate a specific force feedback profile. The controller then commands the servo motor to produce a corresponding torque, creating a variety of programmable tactile sensations such as detents, walls, or textures (’672 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:41-54).
- Technical Importance: This technology enabled a single physical controller to generate a wide range of software-defined tactile effects, allowing for greater flexibility and adaptability across different applications without hardware changes (’672 Patent, col. 3:6-14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted. Based on the allegations against the accused hardware systems, independent claim 1 is representative of a potential infringement theory.
- Independent Claim 1: A programmable input and output device comprising:
- A moveable member manipulatable by a human user in at least one degree of freedom;
- A sensor that produces position signals specifying the position of the moveable member;
- A memory, separate from a memory of a host computer and local to the device, in which a plurality of tactile responsiveness definitions are stored;
- A processor electrically coupled to the memory to access a desired tactile responsiveness definition and produce a torque signal; and
- An actuator electrically coupled to the processor and mechanically coupled to the moveable member, which applies a torque to generate a tactile responsiveness.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 6,275,213 - "Tactile Feedback Man-Machine Interface Device"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for tactile feedback solutions that are not "cumbersome, heavy, expensive and difficult to put on and remove," as many existing force-feedback systems were. It also notes that simpler tactile devices like voice coils could quickly "numb the skin" and become ineffective (’213 Patent, col. 1:53-64).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a compact "vibrotactile unit" for generating tactile sensations. The core of the solution, shown in Figure 1a, is a mass-moving actuator, specifically an electric motor (100) that rotates an eccentric mass (101). The rapid rotation of this off-center mass creates a vibration. This vibration is controlled by a signal processor that interprets a "state signal" from a physical sensor or a virtual environment (e.g., a video game) and generates a corresponding "activating signal" to drive the motor, thereby modulating the tactile effect felt by the user (’213 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:13-33).
- Technical Importance: This approach provided a lightweight, inexpensive, and robust method for generating tactile feedback, making it highly suitable for integration into handheld controllers and wearable devices like gloves for virtual reality applications (’213 Patent, col. 7:10-15).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted. Independent claim 1 is representative of a system-level infringement theory.
- Independent Claim 1: A system for providing a tactile sensation to a sensing body part, comprising:
- Means for generating a variable state signal;
- A mass-moving actuator comprising a shaft and an eccentric mass mounted on the shaft for transmitting vibrations by rotating the shaft; and
- A signal processor for receiving and interpreting the state signal to produce an activating signal for the actuator, thereby producing a variable tactile sensation by varying the vibration's frequency and amplitude.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities include the Sony "PlayStation" and "PlayStation2" video game systems, their associated "DualShock" and "DualShock 2" controllers, and software such as "ATV Offroad Fury." Also accused are the Microsoft "Xbox Video Game System," the "Xbox Game Controller," and software such as "Halo" (Compl. ¶¶10, 14, 19, 23).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused products are hardware and software systems "enabled for touch feedback" (Compl. ¶¶2, 6, 14, 18). It identifies the products as video game consoles, controllers, accessories, and software components. The complaint alleges that Defendants design, manufacture, and/or distribute these products worldwide (Compl. ¶¶5, 8). The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the operation of the accused products' feedback mechanisms.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint provides a general notice of infringement without mapping specific product features to claim elements. The following charts summarize the apparent infringement theory based on the asserted claims and the nature of the accused products.
- 5,889,672 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a moveable member manipulatable by a human user in at least one degree of freedom | The complaint alleges that the accused controllers as a whole, which include components like analog sticks and buttons, meet this limitation. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of a specific component. | ¶¶10, 14 | col. 15:15-17 |
| a sensor that produces position signals specifying the position of said moveable member | The complaint alleges the accused controllers as a whole meet this limitation. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific sensors used. | ¶¶10, 14 | col. 15:18-21 |
| a memory, separate from a memory of said host computer and local to said device, in which a plurality of tactile responsiveness definitions are stored | The complaint alleges the accused controllers and/or consoles as a whole meet this limitation. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific memory architecture. | ¶¶10, 14 | col. 15:22-28 |
| a processor that is electrically coupled to said memory to access a desired tactile responsiveness definition... producing a torque signal | The complaint alleges the accused controllers and/or consoles as a whole meet this limitation. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific processing components. | ¶¶10, 14 | col. 15:29-35 |
| an actuator electrically coupled to said processor and mechanically coupled to said moveable member... applying a torque upon said moveable member | The complaint alleges the accused controllers as a whole meet this limitation. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific actuator mechanisms. | ¶¶10, 14 | col. 15:36-44 |
Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "memory... local to said device" can be construed to read on the memory architecture of the accused systems. The patent's description suggests a self-contained peripheral with its own memory for storing tactile profiles (’672 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 6:5-10). The court may need to determine if the accused controllers, which operate in conjunction with a host console, possess such "local" memory or if the tactile definitions are primarily stored and processed on the host computer.
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide evidence that the accused systems store a "plurality of tactile responsiveness definitions" as contemplated by the patent. A potential dispute is whether simple, pre-set vibration effects triggered by game code qualify as the programmable "torque versus position profiles" described in the patent specification (’672 Patent, col. 6:7-11).
6,275,213 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| means for generating said variable state signal | The complaint alleges that the accused game systems and software (e.g., "Halo") generate signals based on in-game events to trigger tactile feedback. | ¶¶19, 23 | col. 18:45-47 |
| a mass-moving actuator comprising a shaft and an eccentric mass mounted on said shaft for transmitting vibrations... said mass moving actuator rotating said shaft | The complaint alleges the accused controllers contain motors that generate vibrations. The complaint does not specify the mechanism, but this element aligns with the known use of rotating eccentric mass motors in such controllers. | ¶¶19, 23 | col. 18:48-52 |
| a signal processor for receiving and interpreting said state signal to produce an activating signal... to produce a variable tactile sensation | The complaint alleges the accused controllers and/or consoles contain circuitry to process signals from the game and drive the vibration motors. | ¶¶19, 23 | col. 18:53-59 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A likely point of contention is the scope of "interpreting said state signal." The court may need to decide if the circuitry in the accused controllers performs a true "interpretation" of a state signal (as described in the patent, which contemplates processing complex state variables (’213 Patent, col. 3:35-42)), or if it merely executes simple "on/off" or intensity commands passed from the host console.
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide evidence demonstrating how the accused products' processors receive a "state signal" and convert it into an "activating signal." The technical question is whether there is a functional distinction between the signal received by the controller and the signal sent to the motor, or if the controller's circuitry acts as a simple pass-through or amplifier.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term from ’672 Patent: "memory, separate from a memory of said host computer and local to said device" (Claim 1)
Context and Importance: The construction of this architectural limitation may be dispositive of infringement for the ’672 Patent. The dispute will likely center on whether the memory used to store tactile effects in the accused systems is sufficiently "local" to the controller and "separate" from the console to meet the claim's requirements.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "local to said device" simply means physically housed within the controller's casing, regardless of whether the tactile data originates from or is processed in conjunction with the host computer.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly depicts a self-contained system where a dedicated microprocessor and memory (e.g., EEPROM 134) are part of the peripheral device's circuitry and distinct from the "main application CPU" (’672 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 6:5-10). This may support an interpretation that requires the peripheral to have its own independent memory and processing capability for storing and accessing the tactile definitions.
Term from ’213 Patent: "interpreting said state signal" (Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term is critical because infringement may depend on the level of sophistication of the accused controllers' electronics. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether the controllers are merely passive drivers for the motors or active processors as required by the claim.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that any form of processing, including converting a digital command from the console into an analog voltage sufficient to drive the motor, constitutes "interpreting."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the signal processor as an element that "interprets the state, and then determines how and when to activate the vibrotactile units," potentially based on complex events like "contact, gestures, spoken words, onset of panic or unconsciousness" (’213 Patent, col. 3:35-42). This suggests "interpreting" requires a more complex logical operation than simply executing a command to vibrate.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead separate counts for indirect infringement or allege specific facts to support theories of inducement or contributory infringement beyond a general allegation of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (Compl. ¶¶10, 14, 19, 23).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement "is and has been willful and deliberate" (Compl. ¶¶12, 16, 21, 25). The basis for this allegation is the assertion that Defendants "have had actual knowledge" of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶11, 15, 20, 24). The complaint does not provide any specific facts supporting this alleged pre-suit knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This dispute will likely focus on the specific implementation of haptic feedback in the accused Sony and Microsoft gaming systems. Based on the complaint and the patents, the central questions for the court appear to be:
- A core issue will be one of architectural scope: for the ’672 Patent, can the phrase "memory... local to said device" be construed to cover systems where tactile effect data may be stored on and streamed from a host game console, or does the claim require a peripheral with its own standalone memory for storing a "plurality of tactile... definitions"?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: for the ’213 Patent, does the circuitry in the accused controllers perform the claimed function of "interpreting" a "state signal" from the game, or does it merely execute simple vibration commands passed from the console, raising the question of whether there is a fundamental mismatch in the claimed versus actual technical operation?
- A third issue will be the basis for willfulness: the complaint asserts willfulness based on conclusory allegations of "actual knowledge." The viability of this claim will depend on evidence developed during discovery regarding Defendants' pre-suit awareness of the asserted patents.