Better Mouse Co LLC v. Unicadausstore

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Better Mouse Company, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Unicada.us.store and YOUREE Direct (believed to be Chinese entities)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00238, N.D. Ill., 01/10/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 on the basis that Defendants are foreign entities believed to be located in China, who conduct business in the district through interactive Amazon storefronts.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ wireless computer mice, which feature a button for adjusting sensitivity, infringe a patent related to setting mouse resolution via a physical hardware switch.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns on-device hardware for adjusting a computer mouse's dots-per-inch (DPI) resolution, a feature that allows users to change cursor sensitivity without using software.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants had actual notice of the patent at least as of June 7, 2023, when Plaintiff filed an infringement report on Amazon. This allegation forms the basis for the willfulness claim.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: 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's background describes the process of adjusting mouse resolution via computer software as inconvenient, particularly for users who may not understand the software, may have lost the installation media (e.g., a CD-ROM), or find the process cumbersome (’200 Patent, col. 1:15-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a mouse that incorporates a physical "switching circuit" directly on the device. This allows a user to manually select a desired resolution level. The selection is read by a "mouse micro controller," which then stores the corresponding resolution value in an internal "register" and adjusts the cursor's movement accordingly, all without needing a software driver on the connected computer (’200 Patent, col. 2:34-55; Abstract).
• Technical Importance: This approach provides a direct, hardware-based method for users to quickly change mouse sensitivity, a function of particular utility in applications like computer gaming where on-the-fly adjustments are valuable (’200 Patent, col. 1:50-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, with a specific example of Claim 6 (’200 Patent, Compl. ¶23-24).
• Independent Claim 6 recites the following essential elements:
  • 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, activating a "resolution setting pin" to indicate a state.
  • A "mouse micro controller with a register" that is coupled to the detector and the switch.
  • The microcontroller determines the resolution based on the switch's state, sets the resolution, stores it in the register, and provides a control signal to the computer so the cursor moves "directly based on the resolution value stored in the register."
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are identified as the "2.4G Wireless Mouse with adjustable DPI via a switch button (SKU: M003)" sold on Defendants' Amazon storefronts (Compl. ¶19).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused products are wireless computer mice that feature a "DPI Switch" button (Compl. p.6). A product image provided in the complaint shows an overlay stating this button can be pressed to "adjust 5 level DPI (800 - 1200 - 1600 - 2000 - 2600) to meet your demand" (Compl. p.6). This suggests the core accused functionality is on-device, hardware-based adjustment of cursor sensitivity, which is marketed as a key feature.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an exemplary infringement chart in "Exhibit 4," but this exhibit was not included with the filed document (Compl. ¶24). The following analysis is based on the complaint's narrative allegations and the functionality described for the accused product.

’200 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused product's single button, which appears to cycle through five DPI settings, meets the claim limitation of an "N-stage switch... having a switching button capable of being manually switched to one of positions 1 to N." The defense may argue this language requires a switch with distinct, independently selectable physical positions, as depicted in the patent’s embodiments (’200 Patent, FIGS. 2-5), rather than a single button that cycles through states.
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the accused product functions as claimed based on its external features. A key question for discovery will be whether the internal circuitry of the accused mouse actually operates as required by the claim—specifically, whether it uses "a connected resolution setting pin to indicate a state" and "stor[es] the resolution value in the register" in a manner that corresponds to the patent's teachings.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "N-stage switch"
• Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept distinguishing the patent from prior art software-based solutions. Its construction will likely determine whether the accused product's single-button, multi-level DPI cycling mechanism falls within the scope of Claim 6. Practitioners may focus on this term because the apparent difference between the patent's illustrated embodiments and the accused product's implementation is a potential point of non-infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language recites a "switching button capable of being manually switched to one of positions 1 to N." A plaintiff could argue that each press of a cycling button effectively switches the device to a new "position" or state, thereby meeting the functional requirement of the claim, even if it is not a physically distinct switch for each position.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes and illustrates embodiments using either a "plurality of switches 20" (specifically, DIP switches) or an "N-stage switch 31" with a sliding button (311) that appears to move to discrete physical locations (’200 Patent, col. 2:56-60, col. 3:22-28, FIGS. 2-5). A defendant could argue these embodiments define the scope of an "N-stage switch" as one requiring multiple, independently selectable physical contacts or positions, not a single cycling button.

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

• The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants’ continued infringing activity after receiving alleged actual notice of the patent. This notice is claimed to have been provided via an "Amazon infringement report" filed by Plaintiff on or about June 7, 2023 (Compl. ¶21, 23).

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

1. A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "N-stage switch... manually switched to one of positions 1 to N," as defined within the context of the ’200 Patent's specification and figures, be construed broadly enough to read on a single button that cycles through a series of resolution states?
2. A key evidentiary question will be whether the internal architecture of the accused mouse can be proven to operate as claimed. This includes demonstrating that it uses a microcontroller to determine, set, and store the resolution in a register, and subsequently moves the cursor "directly based on the resolution value stored in the register," mirroring the specific mechanism disclosed in the patent.