DCT

1:25-cv-00902

Gametronics LLC v. ACCO Brands Corp

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00902, D. Del., 12/22/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the District of Delaware, has committed acts of infringement in the district, and Plaintiff has suffered harm there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products infringe three patents related to ergonomic devices for generating data signals as an alternative to traditional keyboards.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns ergonomic computer input devices, such as dual-dome or joystick-based controllers, designed to reduce repetitive stress injuries associated with conventional keyboard use.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is a First Amended Complaint, superseding an Original Complaint filed on July 18, 2025. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-11-14 Patent Priority Date ('762, '872, '667 Patents)
2004-06-18 '762 Patent Application Date
2005-11-18 '872 Patent Application Date
2006-06-27 '667 Patent Application Date
2007-08-28 '762 Patent Issue Date
2013-07-16 '872 Patent Issue Date
2013-12-24 '667 Patent Issue Date
2025-07-18 Original Complaint Filing Date
2025-12-22 First Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,262,762 - *`"APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR GENERATING DATA SIGNALS,"`* issued August 28, 2007

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background describes physical problems, including neuromuscular injuries and carpal tunnel syndrome, associated with the repetitive and fatiguing hand, wrist, and finger motions required by conventional typewriter-like keyboards (Compl. ¶8; ’762 Patent, col. 1:21-50).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an ergonomic input apparatus comprising one or two domes that are shaped to conform to a user's hands in a relaxed state. A user generates data signals (i.e., keystrokes) by sliding or moving the domes with slight arm or hand movements, which eliminates the need for individual finger actuation ('762 Patent, Abstract). In a two-handed implementation, signals from both domes can be combined, or "chorded," to generate a full set of alphanumeric characters ('762 Patent, col. 3:19-28).
  • Technical Importance: The technology represents a design philosophy prioritizing ergonomics to address the growing concern over keyboard-related injuries by creating a human-computer interface that does not rely on the legacy typewriter layout ('762 Patent, col. 1:21-27).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts infringement of "exemplary claims" but does not identify them in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶13). Analysis of independent claim 1, a common starting point in litigation, reveals the following essential elements for a handheld device:

  • a main body;
  • a pair of thumb controllers integral with the main body and positioned for engagement by a user's thumbs;
  • a pair of sensing means connected to the thumb controllers that generate electrical signals indicative of the direction of force applied;
  • a processing module programmed to resolve the signals from the sensing means to determine an alphanumeric character;
  • means for generating data signals indicative of that character; and
  • means for transmitting the data signals to a receiving device.

U.S. Patent No. 8,487,872 - *`"APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR GENERATING DATA SIGNALS,"`* issued July 16, 2013

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same ergonomic problems as the '762 Patent family, noting the physical stress of conventional keyboards and the difficulty of miniaturizing them for handheld use (Compl. ¶10; ’872 Patent, col. 1:21-27, col. 5:1-3).
  • The Patented Solution: As a continuation-in-part of the application leading to the '762 Patent, this patent describes a similar ergonomic input device. The claims and specification place a particular emphasis on handheld embodiments with thumb controllers and integration with video games ('872 Patent, Abstract). The core concept remains the generation of data signals through the movement of controllers rather than the pressing of individual keys ('872 Patent, col. 11:5-24).
  • Technical Importance: The invention extends the ergonomic input concept specifically to the context of handheld devices and gaming, reflecting the market's evolution toward more portable and entertainment-focused electronics.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts infringement of "exemplary method claims" but does not identify them in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶22). Analysis of independent claim 1 reveals the following essential elements for a handheld device:

  • a main body;
  • at least one button integral with the main body having a state for causing generation of electrical signals;
  • a pair of thumb controllers;
  • a pair of position sensing means that generate electrical signals in response to tactile engagement with the thumb controllers;
  • a processing module programmed to resolve these signals to determine an alphanumeric character;
  • a distinct limitation wherein the processing module is further programmed to resolve signals from the thumb controllers and the button "to determine a state change to be generated in a video game"; and
  • means for transmitting an electrical signal indicative of the video game state change.

U.S. Patent No. 8,614,667 - *`"Apparatus and method for generating data signals,"`* issued December 24, 2013

Technology Synopsis

This patent is part of the same family as the '762 and '872 patents (Compl. ¶11). It addresses the ergonomic deficiencies of traditional keyboards by disclosing an input device where data signals are generated by moving one or two domes or controllers with hand or arm movements, rather than by individual finger presses ('667 Patent, Abstract). The solution aims to promote a more natural hand and wrist posture during data entry ('667 Patent, col. 2:23-31).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts infringement of "exemplary claims" but does not identify them in the text (Compl. ¶28).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products," identified in an external exhibit not provided with the complaint, infringe the patent (Compl. ¶28, ¶33).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any accused products by name in the body of the document (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly detailed in Exhibits 4, 5, and 6 (Compl. ¶18, ¶24, ¶33). As these exhibits were not filed with the complaint, the specific products, their technical functionality, and their market context cannot be analyzed from the provided document.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s infringement allegations are made by incorporating by reference external claim chart exhibits that were not provided (Compl. ¶19, ¶25, ¶34). The complaint's narrative theory of infringement is limited to conclusory statements that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary [...] Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶18, ¶24, ¶33). Without the claim charts or a more detailed narrative, a substantive analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible from the complaint itself.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the language of the asserted patents and the procedural posture of the complaint, the infringement analysis may raise several key questions.

  • Scope Questions ('762 Patent): Claim 1 of the ’762 Patent is directed to a "handheld device" with "thumb controllers." A central question may be whether the accused products, once identified, meet these structural definitions. For instance, a dispute could arise if an accused product is a desktop device rather than a handheld one, or if its input mechanisms are not what a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider "thumb controllers."
  • Functional Questions ('872 Patent): Claim 1 of the ’872 Patent requires the processing module to resolve signals "to determine a state change to be generated in a video game." This raises a critical question about the required functionality and context of use. The analysis may turn on whether an accused product must be designed or marketed for gaming, or if it is sufficient that its output signals are merely capable of being interpreted by a video game to cause a state change.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "thumb controllers" ('762 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the primary physical interface for the user. Its construction will be critical in determining whether the input mechanisms of the accused products fall within the scope of the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will establish the structural boundaries of the invention, and a narrow construction could place the accused products outside the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes various embodiments, including palm-operated domes and smaller controllers, suggesting the term is not limited to a single structure ('762 Patent, col. 3:28-34). The claims use the general term "controllers" rather than a more specific term like "domes" or "joysticks."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s figures primarily illustrate two types of structures: large, palm-fitting domes (Fig. 1) and smaller, joystick-like thumb-operated devices (Fig. 9A, Fig. 21). An argument could be made that the term should be limited to the types of physical interfaces actually disclosed in the specification.

The Term: "a state change to be generated in a video game" ('872 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This phrase adds a functional and contextual limitation to the claim, which may significantly narrow its scope to the field of video gaming. The viability of the infringement claim under the '872 patent could depend entirely on how this phrase is construed.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that any standard data signal (e.g., a keystroke) that a video game can interpret to alter its state (e.g., character movement) meets this limitation, regardless of the device's primary purpose. The claim language focuses on the determination of the state change, not the exclusive purpose of the device.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s abstract and background repeatedly reference video game systems like Sony PlayStation and Microsoft Xbox, suggesting the invention is situated within the gaming field ('872 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:33-40). A party could argue this context limits the claim to devices or signals specifically intended for or used in video gaming.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement of the '762 and '667 patents. The allegations are based on Defendant’s distribution of "product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct end users on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶16, ¶31). The complaint does not plead indirect infringement of the '872 patent.

Willful Infringement

Willfulness allegations appear to be based on post-suit knowledge. For the '762 patent, the complaint alleges Defendant gained actual knowledge upon service of the complaint and its attached claim charts (Compl. ¶15-16). For the '667 patent, knowledge is alleged from the service of the Original Complaint filed on July 18, 2025 (Compl. ¶30). The complaint alleges that Defendant continued its infringing activities despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶16, ¶31).

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

  • A primary issue will be evidentiary sufficiency: as the complaint fails to identify the accused products or provide the claim charts it incorporates by reference, a foundational question for the case is whether Plaintiff can produce evidence to connect the specific technical limitations of the asserted claims to the actual functionality of any of Defendant's products.
  • A key legal question will be one of functional scope: for the '872 patent, the case may turn on whether the phrase "a state change to be generated in a video game" limits the claim to dedicated gaming devices, or if it can be construed more broadly to cover general-purpose input devices whose signals are capable of being used by a game.
  • A central issue of claim construction will likely concern the structural scope of the term "thumb controllers" in the '762 patent. The resolution of this term will determine whether the patent is limited to the specific dome and joystick embodiments shown or can cover a wider range of ergonomic input mechanisms.