DCT
1:24-cv-09545
Better Mouse Co LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Better Mouse Company, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A” (Believed to be Chinese entities)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-09545, N.D. Ill., 10/04/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Illinois on the basis that the Defendants are foreign entities, believed to be based in China.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ computer mice infringe a patent related to adjusting mouse sensitivity (DPI) using a physical, on-device switch rather than software.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns on-the-fly hardware adjustment of computer mouse resolution, a feature of particular importance in the computer gaming and professional graphics markets.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-01-18 | Patent Priority Date |
| 2009-05-12 | Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-10-04 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
The complaint alleges infringement of a single patent, which it states was filed on January 18, 2005 and issued on May 12, 2009 (Compl. ¶12). Based on this data, the patent-in-suit is identified as U.S. Patent No. 7,532,197.
U.S. Patent No. 7,532,197 - Apparatus for Setting Multi-Stage Displacement Resolution of a Mouse
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,532,197 (“the ’197 Patent”), issued May 12, 2009.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the state of the prior art for adjusting mouse resolution as inconvenient, typically requiring a user to install a specific software driver from a CD-ROM and navigate a software interface on the computer to change settings (Compl. ¶15; ’197 Patent, col. 1:21-36).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an apparatus within the mouse itself that allows a user to adjust the displacement resolution (commonly known as DPI) by hand using a physical switch on the mouse body. A microcontroller inside the mouse detects the state of the switch and directly sets the corresponding resolution value, eliminating the need for external software drivers or tools to perform this function (’197 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶15).
- Technical Importance: This hardware-based approach provides users with a more immediate and efficient method to change cursor sensitivity, which is particularly useful in applications like computer gaming where rapid adjustment is advantageous (Compl. ¶14-15).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint specifically asserts infringement of at least Claim 6, which is an independent claim (Compl. ¶24).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 6 are:
- An apparatus for setting multi-stage displacement resolution of a mouse, comprising:
- an X-Y axis plane displacement detector for sensing a distance and a moving direction generated by the mouse;
- a switching circuit having a plurality of switches;
- a mouse micro controller coupled to the X-Y axis plane displacement detector and the switching circuit;
- wherein the mouse micro controller sets the mouse resolution based on each of the switches, and responds to the distance and the moving direction sensed by the X-Y axis plane displacement detector to provide a control signal to a computer connected to the mouse, thereby moving the mouse cursor on a screen of the computer, wherein the mouse cursor is moved based on the mouse resolution.
- The complaint notes that the accused product infringes "one or more claims of the Patent," reserving the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶23).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is a "honeycomb designed" computer mouse sold by Defendants on Amazon and Shein online storefronts (Compl. ¶1, 7, 19).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused product is a computer mouse that allegedly features an "adjustable DPI via a switch button" (Compl. ¶19). A marketing image included in the complaint shows a physical button on the top of the mouse used to cycle through six different DPI levels, ranging from 800 to 10,000 DPI (Compl. p. 6). The image also indicates that the mouse's LED light color changes to correspond with the selected DPI level (Compl. p. 6). The complaint alleges that Defendants are "foreign patent infringers" targeting consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through online sales (Compl. ¶1, 3).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint states that an exemplary infringement chart is attached as Exhibit 4, but this exhibit was not included with the filing (Compl. ¶24). The following chart summarizes the infringement allegations for Claim 6 based on the narrative assertions and visual evidence in the complaint.
’197 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 6) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An apparatus for setting multi-stage displacement resolution of a mouse... | The accused infringing product is a computer mouse. | ¶19 | col. 2:3-4 |
| an X-Y axis plane displacement detector for sensing a distance and a moving direction generated by the mouse; | This is an inherent component of the accused product, which is alleged to function as a computer mouse. | ¶19 | col. 2:4-6 |
| a switching circuit having a plurality of switches; | The accused mouse has a "switch button" for adjusting DPI settings. | ¶19; p. 6 | col. 2:6-7 |
| a mouse micro controller coupled to the X-Y axis plane displacement detector and the switching circuit; | This is an inherent component of the accused product, which is alleged to perform the function of setting adjustable DPI. | ¶19 | col. 2:8-10 |
| wherein the mouse micro controller sets the mouse resolution based on each of the switches... | The accused mouse's "switch button" is used to set the DPI at various levels, such as 800, 1600, and up to 10000 DPI. | ¶19; p. 6 | col. 2:10-12 |
| ...and responds to the distance and the moving direction...to provide a control signal to a computer... | This is an inherent function of the accused product, which is alleged to operate as a computer mouse. | ¶19 | col. 2:12-14 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The primary point of contention may be the claim term "a plurality of switches." The complaint's evidence shows a single "switch button" on the accused product (Compl. p. 6). The case may turn on whether a single physical button that actuates a circuit to cycle through multiple distinct resolution settings can be construed to meet this "plurality" requirement.
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide direct evidence of the internal components of the accused mouse, such as the "X-Y axis plane displacement detector" or the "mouse micro controller." The infringement allegation for these elements appears to rely on the inference that these components must be present for the device to function as an adjustable-DPI mouse. The sufficiency of these pleadings to allege the presence of specific internal hardware may be challenged.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "a plurality of switches"
- Context and Importance: The construction of this term appears central to the infringement analysis. The accused product is depicted with a single physical button for DPI adjustment (Compl. p. 6). Whether this single-button design infringes Claim 6 will depend on the scope afforded to "plurality of switches." Practitioners may focus on this term because of the potential mismatch between the claim language and the physical embodiment of the accused product.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for a broader scope may contend that "plurality of switches" does not necessarily require a plurality of physical buttons. It could be argued that a single button interacting with a circuit to select from a plurality of different electrical paths or logical states satisfies the limitation. The patent's overall objective is to provide hardware-based resolution adjustment, a function the accused product's single button appears to perform (Compl. ¶15).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for a narrower scope will likely emphasize the plain meaning of "plurality" as "two or more." This position is supported by embodiments in the patent that explicitly depict two separate switches (e.g., switches 21 and 22 in Fig. 2) to increase or decrease resolution (’197 Patent, col. 3:45-50). The fact that independent Claim 1 requires only "a switching circuit" while Claim 6 specifically recites "a plurality of switches" may support an argument that the patentee deliberately chose a narrower scope for Claim 6.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not allege induced or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants' continued infringing activities after having notice of the ’197 Patent, with notice established "since at least the filing of the Complaint, if not before" (Compl. ¶21, 23). This allegation is based on post-suit knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "a plurality of switches," as used in Claim 6, be construed to cover a single physical button that electronically cycles through multiple resolution settings, or does the plain language of the claim require at least two distinct hardware switches?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of pleading sufficiency: are the complaint's allegations, which rely on marketing materials and functional inferences rather than direct technical evidence of internal components, sufficient to plausibly allege the presence of every element of the asserted claim under the Iqbal/Twombly standard?