DCT
8:24-cv-02498
Better Mouse Co LLC v. Ic Intracom USA LLC
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Better Mouse Company, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Intracom USA, Inc. dba Manhattan Products USA (Florida)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC
- Case Identification: 8:24-cv-02498, M.D. Fla., 11/26/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendant is a Florida corporation with a principal place of business in the district, and is therefore deemed to reside there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s computer mice, which feature on-device resolution adjustment buttons, infringe a patent related to setting mouse displacement resolution without using external computer software.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the user interface and hardware of computer mice, specifically a feature allowing users, often gamers, to change cursor sensitivity (DPI/CPI) directly on the peripheral itself.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of infringement via a letter sent on or around September 18, 2023, to which no response was allegedly received.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-05-05 | ’200 Patent Priority Date |
| 2009-05-12 | ’200 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-09-18 | Plaintiff sends pre-suit notice letter to Defendant |
| 2024-11-26 | Complaint Filed |
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,” Issued May 12, 2009
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the prior art method of adjusting mouse resolution (sensitivity) as inconvenient, as it required users to install and navigate a software driver or tool on the host computer (’200 Patent, col. 1:19-33). This process could be confusing for some users, and the required software could be lost, rendering adjustment impossible (Compl. ¶6; ’200 Patent, col. 1:24-33).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an apparatus, contained entirely within the mouse, that allows a user to set the resolution directly via a physical switch on the mouse body (’200 Patent, Abstract). This switch is coupled to a microcontroller inside the mouse, which determines and sets the resolution based on the switch's state, thereby controlling cursor movement without any need for external software on the connected computer (’200 Patent, col. 2:51-60). The patent discloses embodiments including DIP switches or a multi-position N-stage switch (’200 Patent, FIG. 2, FIG. 4).
- Technical Importance: This approach provided a more direct and user-friendly method for adjusting mouse sensitivity on-the-fly, a feature of particular interest for applications like computer gaming where quick adjustments are valuable (Compl. ¶5).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 6 of the ’200 Patent (Compl. ¶18).
- Independent Claim 6 recites the key elements of the apparatus:
- An "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, which "activat[es] a connected resolution setting pin to indicate a state."
- A "mouse micro controller with a register" that is coupled to the detector and the switch. This controller determines, sets, and stores the resolution value based on the switch's state and uses that value to control the computer's cursor movement.
- The complaint states infringement of "one or more claims," suggesting the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims, may be reserved (Compl. ¶17).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies several "Accused Products," including the "Manhattan RGB Wired Optical USB Gaming Mouse (SKU: 190121)," the "Manhattan Performance Wireless Optical Mouse II (SKU: 179904)," and others sold under the "Manhattan" brand (Compl. ¶17).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the exemplary accused product, the Manhattan RGB Wired Optical USB Gaming Mouse, includes a "top-mount push-button" that allows a user to "instantly shift[] resolution from 1200, 2400, 4800 and 7200 dpi" (Compl. ¶13).
- The product is alleged to contain a "high-precision 7200 CPI optical sensor (Instant A704F)" that supports "4-level resolution" which can be "switched via pressing CPI related buttons" (Compl. ¶14). The complaint includes an image of the exemplary accused mouse and its packaging. (Compl. p. 5). The image on page 5 of the complaint shows a top-down view of the accused mouse, highlighting a button located behind the scroll wheel. (Compl. p. 5).
- The accused products are described as being marketed for a "wide range of applications, including gaming or daily computing tasks" and sold through a "vast network of distributors, resellers and online sellers" (Compl. ¶11, ¶13).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that an exemplary claim chart is attached as Exhibit B, but this exhibit was not included with the filed document (Compl. ¶18). The following chart summarizes the infringement allegations for Claim 6 based on the narrative descriptions provided in the complaint.
’200 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 6) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a X-Y axis plane displacement detector, for sensing a distance and a moving direction generated by the mouse in a two-dimensional space; | The accused products contain a "high-precision 7200 CPI optical sensor (Instant A704F)" which detects the movement of the mouse. | ¶14 | col. 2:46-51 |
| an N-stage switch for setting a resolution value, the N-stage switch circuit having a switching button capable of being manually switched to one of positions 1 to N, and accordingly activating a connected resolution setting pin to indicate a state, where N is a positive integer; | The accused products include a "top-mount push-button" or "CPI related buttons" that allow the user to manually switch between N (e.g., four) different resolution levels (e.g., 1200, 2400, 4800, and 7200 dpi). | ¶13, ¶14 | col. 3:23-34 |
| a mouse micro controller with a register, coupled to the X-Y axis plane displacement detector and the switching circuit, the mouse micro controller determining the resolution value based on the state of the connected resolution setting pins, setting a mouse resolution... and storing the resolution value in the register... moving the mouse cursor... based on the resolution value stored in the register. | The internal circuitry of the accused products is alleged to determine the resolution based on the button press, set that resolution, and control the cursor's movement on the screen accordingly, without the need for external software, thus meeting every limitation of the claim. | ¶13, ¶14, ¶18 | col. 3:38-45 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the accused product's "top-mount push-button," which appears to cycle through a list of preset DPI values, constitutes an "N-stage switch ... having a switching button capable of being manually switched to one of positions 1 to N" as recited in the claim. The defense may argue the claim language implies a switch with N distinct physical positions, as shown in the patent's embodiments, rather than a single button that cycles through settings.
- Technical Questions: The claim requires the switch to be "activating a connected resolution setting pin to indicate a state." A key factual question is how the accused product's internal electronics actually function. The infringement allegation raises the question of whether the accused device's push-button and microcontroller operate by activating distinct resolution pins, or if they use a different architecture, such as cycling through values stored in firmware, which might not read on the claim's specific functional language.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "an N-stage switch"
- Context and Importance: This term is the central novel element of the asserted independent claim. The outcome of the infringement analysis will heavily depend on whether the accused product's single "top-mount push-button" falls within the court's construction of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's specific embodiments differ from the apparent implementation in the accused product.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term should be interpreted functionally to mean any switch mechanism on the mouse that allows a user to select one of N resolution levels. The claim language itself is functional, describing a switch "for setting a resolution value" and a button "capable of being manually switched" (’200 Patent, col. 4:33-36).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the term is limited by the patent's disclosure to a switch with N distinct physical positions corresponding to N hardware states. The specification explicitly describes an embodiment with multiple DIP switches (’200 Patent, FIG. 2; col. 3:17-21) and an alternative "N-stage switch 31" with a button "switched to position [i] (i=1~N)" which in turn makes a specific "resolution setting pin DPI_SET [i] ... to be 1" (’200 Patent, FIG. 4; col. 3:23-30). This suggests a direct, position-based hardware mapping, which may differ from the accused cycling push-button.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks judgment for both direct and indirect infringement (Compl. p. 7, Prayer A). However, the body of the complaint does not plead specific facts to support a claim of induced or contributory infringement, such as allegations regarding user manuals or other instructions.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement is willful (Compl. ¶17). This allegation is supported by the assertion that Plaintiff sent a notice letter to Defendant on September 18, 2023, putting Defendant on notice of the ’200 Patent, and that Defendant continued its allegedly infringing conduct thereafter (Compl. ¶15, ¶17).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This dispute appears to center on the interpretation of the patent's claims relative to modern product design. The key questions for the court will likely be:
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "N-stage switch," which the patent illustrates with discrete, multi-position hardware switches, be construed to cover the accused product's single push-button that cycles through a predefined list of resolution settings?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the internal circuitry of the accused mouse function by "activating a connected resolution setting pin to indicate a state," as required by Claim 6, or does it employ a different, non-infringing software- or firmware-based method to change resolution that is technically distinct from the mechanism described in the patent? The resolution of this factual question will require discovery into the accused products' design.