Gamehancement LLC v. NCH Software Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Case Name: Gamehancement LLC v. NCH Software Inc.
• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Gamehancement LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: NCH Software Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-02411, D. Colo., 08/05/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant having an established place of business in the District of Colorado.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unidentified software products infringe a patent related to methods for controlling the visual presentation of data, specifically the transitions between different display states.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns software for creating and delivering presentations, such as slideshows or videoconferences, aiming to automate the selection of aesthetically appropriate visual transitions to give presentations a more professional quality, even when created by unskilled users.
• 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

Date	Event
2001-11-09	U.S. Patent No. 7,102,643 Priority Date
2006-09-05	U.S. Patent No. 7,102,643 Issued
2025-08-05	Complaint Filed

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,102,643, “Method and apparatus for controlling the visual presentation of data,” issued September 5, 2006.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem wherein unskilled users creating presentations (like slideshows) struggle to select appropriate and aesthetically pleasing transition effects between different slides or views. (’971 Patent, col. 1:36-59). This problem is exacerbated when a presenter deviates from a pre-planned sequence, which can result in a "disruptive" or "amateurish" transition being displayed, distracting the audience. (’971 Patent, col. 2:4-24).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a transition effect is pre-associated with every pair of potentially successive "display configuration states." (’971 Patent, col. 2:58-65). A "display configuration state" is the format of a screen, such as a full-screen video or a video with a text overlay (’971 Patent, col. 5:12-15). By creating a matrix of all possible state-to-state transitions (as shown in Figure 3), the system can automatically select a contextually appropriate visual effect, regardless of the sequence in which the states are presented. (’971 Patent, col. 7:10-21). This removes the burden from the unskilled user and ensures a professional appearance.
• Technical Importance: This approach aims to provide non-expert users with access to tools that mimic the decision-making of a "trained and intelligent director," ensuring the audience focuses on the presentation's message rather than its production quality. (’971 Patent, col. 2:1-3).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims in its text, instead stating that it is asserting "one or more claims" and incorporating by reference charts from an unprovided exhibit. (Compl. ¶¶11, 13). Assuming the assertion of foundational claims, an analysis of independent claim 16 follows.
• Independent Claim 16: A method of controlling a visual presentation of data, comprising the steps of:
  • providing a plurality of transition effects;
  • for each pair of potentially successive visual display configuration states, associating a transition effect therewith;
  • receiving transition input indicative to transition from a current visual display configuration state to a next visual display configuration state...; and
  • during the transition... presenting to the viewer the transition effect associated with the defined pair of successive visual display configuration states.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not name any specific accused products or services in its narrative text. (Compl. ¶11). It refers generally to "Defendant products" and "Exemplary Defendant Products," which it states are identified in charts incorporated as Exhibit 2. (Compl. ¶¶11, 13). This exhibit was not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement is detailed in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2, which was not provided with the public filing. (Compl. ¶¶13-14). The narrative infringement theory is limited to the conclusory statement that "the Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the ’643 Patent." (Compl. ¶13). Without access to the referenced exhibit, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "visual display configuration state"

• Context and Importance: This term is the fundamental building block of the claimed method. The scope of infringement will depend on what types of screen layouts and data presentations qualify as a "state." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the accused products' user interfaces and presentation formats fall within the patent's scope.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a broad definition: "A display configuration state is the format of a screen and defines the framework through which data content is presented." (’971 Patent, col. 5:12-14). This language suggests the term is not limited to specific examples but covers the general concept of screen formatting.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a discrete set of examples, such as a full-screen video (Fig. 1(a)), a video with a text box (Fig. 1(b)), and an "Over-the-Shoulder View" (Fig. 1(j)). (’971 Patent, col. 5:16-64). A defendant may argue that the term should be construed as limited to the types of distinct, pre-defined layout templates shown in these embodiments, rather than any arbitrary screen arrangement.

• The Term: "associating a transition effect therewith" (in the context of "for each pair of potentially successive visual display configuration states")

• Context and Importance: This phrase captures the core logic of the invention. The dispute may turn on whether the accused products perform this comprehensive association for all potential transitions, as the claim language suggests, or use a more limited or different logic for selecting transitions.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent emphasizes solving the problem of "unplanned" transitions, suggesting the association must be comprehensive to cover any possible sequence. (’971 Patent, col. 2:4-17). The purpose is to eliminate "the possibility of an inappropriate transition effect being implemented." (’971 Patent, col. 7:12-15).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses implementation via a "matrix 200" (Fig. 3) where each cell defines a pairing. (’971 Patent, col. 7:21-37). A party could argue that "associating" requires a specific data structure, like the disclosed matrix, where every possible pairing is explicitly pre-defined, and that systems using other methods (e.g., rule-based logic or default transitions) do not meet this limitation.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint’s single count is for "Direct Infringement." (Compl. p. 2). It does not allege facts sufficient to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement, such as knowledge and intent to encourage infringement by others.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement or plead facts related to pre-suit or post-suit knowledge of the patent. (Compl. ¶¶1-16). However, in the prayer for relief, it requests that the case be "declared exceptional" and seeks an award of attorneys' fees. (Compl. Prayer ¶E(i)).

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

1. Pleading Sufficiency: A threshold issue is whether the complaint, which outsources all key factual allegations regarding the identity of the accused products and the manner of infringement to an unprovided external exhibit, meets federal pleading standards for providing adequate notice to the defendant.
2. Definitional Scope: The central substantive dispute will likely concern the claim term "visual display configuration state." The question for the court will be whether this term is limited to the discrete, slide-like templates shown in the patent's embodiments or can be construed more broadly to cover the dynamic user interface layouts of modern software.
3. Technical Operation: A key evidentiary question will be one of functional correspondence. Assuming accused products are identified, the case will likely turn on whether they actually implement the claimed method of pre-associating a specific transition effect for every potential pair of states, or if they employ a different, more limited mechanism for managing visual transitions that falls outside the claim language.