6:00-cv-00600
Jacobs v. Microsoft Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Jordan Spencer Jacobs (Florida)
- Defendant: Microsoft Corporation, Logitech, Inc., Pelican Accessories, Analog Devices, Inc. (all described as foreign corporations)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Gray Harris & Robinson, P.A.; Bencen & Van Dyke, P.A.
- Case Identification: 6:00-cv-00600, M.D. Fla., 05/12/2000
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged on the basis that Defendants are foreign corporations transacting business, contracting to supply goods, and regularly soliciting business in the judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ tilt-sensitive video game controllers, and the components within them, infringe a patent related to a manually held, non-joystick, tilt-based control box.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to game controllers that translate the physical tilting of the device by a user into directional commands for a video game or other computer application.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that co-inventor Marvin Jacobs, now deceased, transferred all his rights and interests in the patent-in-suit to Plaintiff Jordan Spencer Jacobs. No other procedural history is mentioned.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1990-04-10 | '958 Patent Priority Date (Filing Date) |
| 1991-10-22 | '958 Patent Issue Date |
| 1998-09-15 | Analog Devices press release announces ADXL202 sensor for Microsoft controller |
| Fall 1998 | Anticipated launch of Microsoft SideWinder Freestyle Pro |
| 2000-05-12 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 5,059,958 - "Manually Held Tilt Sensitive Non-Joystick Control Box"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes prior art controllers, particularly joysticks, as being "complex, unreliable, mundane, and awkward to use," leading to issues like "wrist fatigue" and a lack of an intuitive neutral position reference ('958 Patent, col. 1:40-50).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a "non-joystick, manually held, box-like structured device" that uses internal "position responsive gravity switches" to generate electrical control signals corresponding to the controller's tilt angle ('958 Patent, col. 1:7-13). The specification and figures explicitly disclose using an array of "encapsulated mercury bulb switches" that close electrical circuits when the device is tilted in specific directions, such as forward, back, left, or right ('958 Patent, col. 4:24-33; FIG. 1). The box-like shape is designed to be held with two hands, providing stable control and an easy reference to a neutral, horizontal position ('958 Patent, col. 1:13-17).
- Technical Importance: The invention proposed an alternative to joystick-based control, leveraging a user's intuitive sense of motion and balance to direct on-screen action, which the patent asserts provides for "faster reaction time" and "enhanced human factors" ('958 Patent, col. 2:21-23).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶6). Independent claim 1 is central to the invention.
- Independent Claim 1:
- A manually held tilt sensitive control box device for producing electrical control signals, comprising:
- an enclosure for said control box device structured in a boxlike shape wherein main structural members of said enclosure are rigidly disposed relative to each other;
- means disposed within said enclosure for producing said electrical control signals corresponding to different tilt attitudes;
- said enclosure shaped for holding with both hands symmetrically disposed at opposing left and right sides of said enclosure to facilitate tilting said enclosure around an axis of said enclosure to produce said electrical tilt attitude control signals for control of an apparatus; and
- said enclosure having at least one planar horizontal top surface for auxiliary applications that include providing an operator of said control box device with a visual reference to facilitate attaining a neutral tilt attitude position with respect to a horizon.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint names the Microsoft "Sidewinder Freestyle Pro," the Logitech "Wingman Gamepad Extreme," and the Pelican "Tiltforce 2 Motion-Sensing Force Feedback Controller" as directly infringing products (Compl. ¶6). It also identifies components from Analog Devices, Inc. as contributorily infringing (Compl. ¶8).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the accused products are "remarkably similar, if not identical, tilt-sensitive controllers" (Compl. ¶6). Exhibits attached to the complaint describe these products as featuring "Motion-Sensing technology that responds to your body movement" (Compl. Ex. B, p. 17) and "Ultra-accurate G-FORCE TILT™ motion sensing for superior proportional control" (Compl. Ex. C, p. 19). For the Pelican controller, an exhibit highlights its "Motion-Sensing technology" that allows a user to "carve the tightest curves or go vertical by simply tilting the controller" (Compl. Ex. D, p. 22).
Significantly, an exhibit regarding the Microsoft product states that its "motion sensor" is not a mechanical device like a mercury switch, but rather "solid state accelerometers" specifically, the "ADXL202 micro-machined accelerometer" made by Defendant Analog Devices (Compl. Ex. E, p. 23). This exhibit explains that these accelerometers incorporate "microscopic moving silicon parts and signal conditioning circuitry onto a single microchip" to measure static acceleration such as gravity or tilt (Compl. Ex. E, p. 23).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'958 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality - | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an enclosure for said control box device structured in a boxlike shape... | The accused products are handheld game controllers with a defined enclosure. A marketing image for the Microsoft SideWinder Freestyle Pro depicts the controller's physical shape (Compl. Ex. B, p. 17). - | ¶6 | col. 6:16-20 |
| means disposed within said enclosure for producing said electrical control signals corresponding to different tilt attitudes; | The accused products are alleged to be "tilt-sensitive controllers" that use "Motion-Sensing technology" to convert user movement into game commands. An article attached as an exhibit identifies the technology in the Microsoft product as a "solid state accelerometer" that can measure "low g static acceleration (e.g., gravity or tilt)" (Compl. Ex. E, p. 23). | ¶6; Ex. B, p. 17; Ex. E, p. 23 | col. 6:21-23 |
| said enclosure shaped for holding with both hands symmetrically disposed at opposing left and right sides of said enclosure to facilitate tilting... | The accused products are gamepads designed to be held with two hands. A marketing image for the Logitech Wingman Gamepad Extreme shows a user holding the device in this manner (Compl. Ex. C, p. 20). - | ¶6; Ex. C, p. 20 | col. 6:24-29 |
| said enclosure having at least one planar horizontal top surface...with a visual reference to facilitate attaining a neutral tilt attitude position with respect to a horizon. | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. - | col. 6:30-36 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The primary dispute will likely center on the "means... for producing said electrical control signals" limitation in Claim 1. The key question is whether this limitation, which the patent discloses as being fulfilled by "mercury bulb switches" ('958 Patent, col. 4:25-26), can be construed to read on the "solid state accelerometers" allegedly used in the accused products (Compl. Ex. E, p. 23). This raises a fundamental question of technological scope under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6 (means-plus-function).
- Technical Questions: A central evidentiary question will be whether a solid-state micro-machined accelerometer is a structural equivalent to the disclosed gravity-based mercury switches. The complaint itself introduces evidence highlighting the difference, describing the accelerometer as "amazing micro technology!" and noting the absence of "mercury switches or some other obvious form of mechanical devices" (Compl. Ex. E, p. 23).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term
"means disposed within said enclosure for producing said electrical control signals corresponding to different tilt attitudes"
Context and Importance
This term, written in means-plus-function format, is the technological heart of Claim 1. Its construction will determine whether the claim is limited to the specific technology disclosed in the patent or can cover subsequent, different technologies that perform the same function. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused products allegedly use a different technology (solid-state accelerometers) than the one explicitly described in the patent (mercury switches).
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the "function" is simply "producing... signals corresponding to different tilt attitudes," and that any structure capable of performing this function, if equivalent, should be covered. The patent's "Summary of the Invention" broadly refers to "position responsive gravity switches" without being exclusively limited to mercury ('958 Patent, col. 1:8-9).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue that the only structure disclosed in the specification for performing the claimed function is a specific type of switch. The patent repeatedly and specifically identifies the structure as "encapsulated mercury bulb switches" or other "conductive fluid gravity switches" ('958 Patent, col. 4:25-27) and a "gravity type switch" (Claim 3). An argument could be made that a solid-state accelerometer, which operates on principles of micro-mechanics and capacitance change rather than a moving globule of liquid metal completing a circuit, is a non-equivalent structure.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges inducement against Microsoft, Logitech, and Pelican for marketing and distributing the controllers with the knowledge and intent that they be used in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶7). It also alleges contributory infringement against Analog Devices for manufacturing and selling the internal accelerometer components, which are alleged to be especially made or adapted for use in the infringing controllers and to have no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶8).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement has been "willful and deliberate" (Compl. ¶10) but does not plead specific facts showing pre-suit knowledge of the patent, such as a notice letter or prior litigation.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction and equivalence: Is the "means for producing... signals" limitation of Claim 1, which the patent specification ties to mechanical "gravity switches," broad enough under 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6 and the doctrine of equivalents to cover the solid-state, micro-machined accelerometers allegedly used in the accused products?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technological difference: Can Plaintiff prove that a solid-state accelerometer is a structural equivalent to the patent's disclosed mercury switches, particularly when the complaint's own exhibits frame the accelerometer as a novel and non-obvious technology distinct from older mechanical switches?