2:21-cv-00262
Junk Food Custom Arcades LLC v. Hit Box LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Junk Food Custom Arcades, LLC (Georgia)
- Defendant: Hit Box LLC (Nevada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Hill, Kertscher & Wharton, LLP
- Case Identification: 2:21-cv-00262, N.D. Ga., 12/06/2021
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff asserts venue is proper in the Northern District of Georgia because a substantial part of the events, namely the Defendant sending a letter alleging infringement to the Plaintiff in Georgia, occurred in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its gaming controller products do not infringe Defendant’s patent and that the patent is invalid, following receipt of an infringement notice from the Defendant.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the design of specialized, all-button arcade-style controllers for fighting video games, a niche but competitive market where controller layout ergonomics can impact player performance.
- Key Procedural History: The action was precipitated by a letter dated November 9, 2021, in which Defendant Hit Box accused Plaintiff JFCA's "Snack Box Micro" and "Snack Box V2" products of infringing its patent. JFCA filed this declaratory judgment action in response, also alleging that Hit Box's notice violated Georgia's Fair Business Practices Act by failing to provide sufficient factual support for its infringement claims.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-12-06 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,022,623 |
| 2018-07-17 | U.S. Patent No. 10,022,623 Issued |
| 2021-11-09 | Defendant sends infringement notice letter to Plaintiff |
| 2021-12-06 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,022,623 - Ergonomically Correct Game Controller
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that traditional game controllers, which typically use a joystick for movement and have arbitrary button placements, are not conducive to efficient play and do not take advantage of the natural shape and features of the human hand (’623 Patent, col. 1:15-24). This can lead to slower reaction times and less precise control in competitive gaming.
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an "all-push-button" game controller that replaces the traditional joystick with four directional buttons for the user's left hand and arranges function buttons for the right hand in a layout that "matches the natural contour and shape of the human hand" (’623 Patent, col. 1:2-8, col. 2:20-25). As illustrated in Figures 2-4, the layout is designed so that the user's fingers can rest on and activate the buttons with minimal effort and movement, aiming to eliminate accidental inputs and reduce travel time between actions (’623 Patent, col. 1:5-10; col. 2:37-41).
- Technical Importance: This design purports to offer greater speed, accuracy, and ergonomic comfort compared to joystick-based controllers, particularly in the fighting game genre where complex, rapid sequences of inputs are required (’623 Patent, col. 1:65-col. 2:10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent claims 1 and 10 as being asserted against the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶4).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a hand-operated game controller with key elements including:
- An "all-push-button game controller surface" that is flat and divided by a "middle boundary line."
- A "left hand position" with four movement push buttons (left, down, right, up) in a specific "arc-shape layout."
- The "up" movement button is "at least partially disposed on said middle boundary line."
- A "right hand position" with eight function buttons in two rows.
- A specific positioning of the "up" button relative to the function buttons, such that it can be activated by either the left or right thumb.
- Independent Claim 10 recites a similar controller surface consisting of:
- Four movement push buttons and eight function buttons with specific relative layouts, including the "up" button being "at least partially disposed on said middle boundary line."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, as it is a declaratory judgment action filed by the accused infringer.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Snack Box Micro" and "Snack Box V2" gaming consoles manufactured and sold by Plaintiff JFCA (Compl. ¶4).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the accused products as "innovative gaming consoles" and identifies JFCA as a competitor to Defendant Hit Box in this market (Compl. ¶1-2). The specific non-infringement allegations suggest they are all-button controllers with layouts for directional and function inputs, similar in concept to the patented device (Compl. ¶16). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a deeper analysis of the products' technical operation beyond the specific features discussed in its non-infringement arguments.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. It does not provide a formal claim chart but makes two central arguments for why its products fall outside the scope of the asserted claims. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’623 Patent Infringement Allegations (based on Plaintiff's Denials)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an all-push-button game controller surface | Plaintiff alleges its Snack Box Micro product "does not have 'push buttons,'" suggesting a dispute over the definition or type of button mechanism used. | ¶16 | col. 4:22-23 |
| said game controller surface including a ... right hand position extending inwardly from said right edge to said middle boundary line | Plaintiff alleges that on both accused products, "certain of the right function buttons ... extend in part over the middle boundary," and therefore are not contained entirely within the claimed "right hand position." | ¶16 | col. 4:32-34 |
| said right hand position including eight function buttons | As a consequence of the allegation above, Plaintiff's position suggests its products do not have a "right hand position including eight function buttons" as defined by the claim, because some of those buttons allegedly cross the boundary. | ¶16 | col. 4:38-39 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Definitional Question: A central dispute will be the interpretation of the term "push buttons." Does this term have a specific technical meaning in the art that excludes the components used in the "Snack Box Micro," or does it carry its plain and ordinary meaning?
- Factual/Spatial Question: The case raises a direct factual question regarding the physical layout of the accused products. Does photographic or physical evidence show that the right-hand function buttons on the Snack Box Micro and V2 controllers in fact cross the controller's conceptual "middle boundary line," thereby avoiding a key limitation of the asserted claims?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "push buttons"
Context and Importance: This term appears in the preamble ("all-push-button") and throughout the body of claims 1 and 10. Plaintiff’s allegation that its "Snack Box Micro does not have 'push buttons'" makes the construction of this term dispositive for that product (Compl. ¶16). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could either read the Snack Box Micro entirely out of the patent's scope or confirm it is the type of device the patent covers.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification frequently uses the term "push buttons" generally to refer to the controller's inputs without specifying a particular mechanism (’623 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:40). This may support a broad construction covering any button-like input that a user pushes.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also refers to "arcade-quality directional pushbuttons" and "arcade pushbuttons," suggesting the inventor may have had a specific type of component in mind, such as those commonly used in commercial arcade machines (’623 Patent, col. 1:7; col. 3:32). Plaintiff may argue that its components are of a different type and thus not "push buttons" as contemplated by the patent.
The Term: "middle boundary line"
Context and Importance: This term is critical for defining the spatial relationship between the left-hand and right-hand button groups in claims 1 and 10. Plaintiff's primary non-infringement argument for both accused products hinges on its buttons crossing this line (Compl. ¶16). The location of this line and the requirement that the right-hand buttons stay on one side of it are central to the infringement analysis.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader/More Flexible Interpretation: The term itself is not explicitly defined with geometric precision. Parties could argue about where the "middle" is located on an asymmetrical layout, potentially creating ambiguity.
- Evidence for a Narrower/More Rigid Interpretation: Claim 1 defines the line as the boundary to which the left and right edges of the controller surface extend "inwardly" (’623 Patent, col. 4:26-28). The claim also requires the "right hand position" to extend from the right edge to the middle boundary line, implying the buttons for that hand must be located entirely within that zone (’623 Patent, col. 4:32-34). This language may support a strict interpretation that any button crossing the line does not meet the limitation.
VI. Other Allegations
This section is not applicable, as the complaint is a declaratory judgment action and does not allege indirect or willful infringement by the defendant.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case appears to center on fundamental questions of claim scope and patent validity, typical of a declaratory judgment action filed by a competitor. The key questions for the court will likely be:
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: How should the term “push buttons” be construed? Is it a generic term for any depressible switch, or does the patent’s context limit it to a specific type, such as "arcade-style" buttons, potentially excluding the components used in the Snack Box Micro?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of physical location: Do the accused controllers have function buttons that cross the "middle boundary line" as claimed by the Plaintiff? This is a factual dispute that will likely be resolved through expert testimony and examination of the products themselves, with the outcome potentially determining infringement for both accused products.
- A foundational issue will be one of patent eligibility: Does the patent claim merely the abstract idea of arranging buttons ergonomically, implemented with conventional technology, as Plaintiff alleges? The court will need to analyze whether the specific claimed arrangement provides a sufficient inventive concept to be patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.