Motionless Keyboard Co v. Microsoft Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Thomas L. Gambaro (presumed based on patent inventorship)
  • Defendant: Not identified in the provided documents
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Not identified in the provided documents
• Case Identification: 6:04-cv-00180, D. Or., 04/19/2004
• Venue Allegations: The complaint, which would contain the basis for venue in the District of Oregon, was not provided.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges infringement of patents related to ergonomic keyboards and input devices designed to conform to the human hand's architecture.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses ergonomic input devices, a field significant for mitigating repetitive strain injuries associated with prolonged use of conventional computer keyboards.
• Key Procedural History: The provided documents indicate U.S. Patent No. 5,332,322 is a continuation-in-part of the application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 5,178,477. The ’322 Patent contains a terminal disclaimer, limiting its term to that of the earlier ’477 Patent, a fact that may be relevant to the calculation of potential damages.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1991-06-06	Priority Date for ’477 Patent and ’322 Patent
1993-01-12	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,178,477
1994-07-26	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,332,322
2004-04-19	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,178,477 - "Ergonomic Keyboard Input Device"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the "annoying and debilitating muscular syndromes that result from repetitive, fatiguing hand, wrist and finger motions" required by conventional typewriter-like keyboards (’477 Patent, col. 1:21-26). Existing ergonomic designs are criticized for still requiring significant finger and hand travel from "home positions" (’477 Patent, col. 1:46-56).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a sculptural, two-handed keyboard where key clusters are arranged to "complement closely the typical underside architecture of the human hand" (’477 Patent, col. 3:42-45). The design requires only "slight gestural motion" of different parts of the fingers—not just the fingertips—to actuate keys, thereby minimizing hand, wrist, and finger movement (’477 Patent, col. 2:25-30). The thumb rests in a separate cluster of keys arranged on three intersecting surfaces (’477 Patent, col. 4:26-31). Figure 1 illustrates the two-handed amphitheater-like design, with separate clusters for each hand's fingers (24) and thumb (34).
• Technical Importance: The invention represents a departure from flat keyboards by creating a three-dimensional interface intended to match the natural, resting posture of the hand and operate via minimal muscle movement.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint was not provided, so the asserted claims are unknown. Claim 1 is analyzed here as the patent's broadest independent claim.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1:
  • An ergonomic keyboard input device with an array of keys "disposed generally to compliment the splayed underside-architecture of a user's hand."
  • For each finger, a "finger-associable cluster of input keys," where each key is arranged to confront a different "underside, finger-expanse portion" of the finger.
  • Actuation is enabled via "only slight, gestural, relatively closing motion of the confronting corresponding finger-expanse portion."
  • For the thumb, a "thumb-associable cluster of input keys disposed generally over three mutually intersecting surfaces" to enable actuation via mixed lateral and endo translation.

U.S. Patent No. 5,332,322 - "Ergonomic Thumb-Actuable Keyboard for a Hand-Grippable Device"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for single-hand operation of electronic devices like portable telephones, particularly when the user is engaged in another activity, such as driving (’322 Patent, col. 1:35-41). Conventional keypads on such devices are not optimized for thumb-only operation while maintaining a secure grip.
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a hand-held device with a "grippable portion" that allows it to be securely held by the fingers, leaving the thumb free to operate a keyboard located in a "concavity" on the device's housing (’322 Patent, col. 3:12-24). The keys within this thumb-actuable cluster are oriented on angularly offset planes, allowing for selective actuation through "slight gestural movements of the thumb," such as mixed lateral and endo (inward) translation, rather than just direct depression (’322 Patent, col. 6:11-18; Fig. 4).
• Technical Importance: This patent adapts the ergonomic principles of the parent '477 Patent to the specific context of single-handed, thumb-operated mobile devices.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint was not provided, so the asserted claims are unknown. Claim 1 is analyzed here as the patent's broadest independent claim.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1:
  • A hand-held device for entering information into an electronic system.
  • A housing with a "grippable portion" permitting the device to be held in one hand with the thumb free.
  • A "concavity" in the housing at a "key-actuation position."
  • A "thumb-associable cluster of keys" forming a keyboard within the concavity.
  • Each key is "selectively actuable via mixed lateral, and slight endo, translation of a thumb within said concavity."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

The complaint, which would identify and describe the accused instrumentality, was not provided.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint, which would contain the specific allegations of infringement, was not provided. Therefore, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Lacking specific infringement allegations, any analysis is speculative. However, based on the patents, disputes could potentially arise regarding:
  • Scope Questions: Whether an accused device that is merely "ergonomic" but does not map its key layout to the specific "underside-architecture" of the hand infringes the '477 Patent. Similarly, for the '322 Patent, a question may be whether any thumb-operated keypad in a recessed area meets the "concavity" limitation.
  • Technical Questions: What objective evidence can demonstrate that an accused keyboard is actuated by "only slight, gestural... motion" ('477 Patent) or "mixed lateral, and slight endo, translation" ('322 Patent), as opposed to conventional fingertip or thumb-tip pressing.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "slight, gestural, relatively closing motion" (’477 Patent, Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term is central to defining the novel method of actuation claimed by the '477 Patent. Its construction will determine whether the patent covers only keyboards actuated by the specific multi-part finger motions described in the specification, or a broader category of ergonomic keyboards that reduce finger movement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The general description focuses on the overall goal of reducing motion injuries and avoiding the large movements of conventional typing, suggesting the term could be interpreted functionally to mean any non-traditional, minimal actuation motion (’477 Patent, col. 2:16-24).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides highly specific examples of gestural motion, linking actuation of different keys to distinct parts of the finger's anatomy, such as the "ungual tuberosity," the "base of the third phalanx," and the "head of the second phalanx" (’477 Patent, col. 6:3-13; Fig. 8). This detail may support a narrower construction limited to this type of multi-part finger actuation.
• The Term: "concavity" (’322 Patent, Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This structural term defines the location of the thumb-actuable keyboard. The scope of "concavity" is critical, as it could distinguish the claimed invention from devices that simply have a flat or slightly recessed area for a keypad.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is used broadly in the summary and claims without many qualifiers, suggesting it could mean any depression or recessed area on the housing designed to accommodate the thumb and keyboard (’322 Patent, col. 3:17-20).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 4 shows a highly contoured, multi-surfaced depression (50) that is more than a simple recess. The specification describes keys being supported on "wall surfaces of concavity 50 in orientations which are angularly offset from one another" (’322 Patent, col. 7:7-10). This may support an argument that "concavity" requires a three-dimensional, sculptural shape with multiple angled surfaces, not just a simple indentation.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint was not provided, so it is unknown if allegations of indirect or willful infringement were made.

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

As the complaint detailing the infringement theories was not available, the central questions remain open. However, based on the patents-in-suit, the litigation will likely depend on the resolution of two fundamental issues:

1. A core issue will be one of functional definition: What is the scope of the claimed actuation methods, such as "slight, gestural... motion" and "mixed lateral, and slight endo, translation"? The case may turn on whether these terms are limited to the precise anatomical interactions described in the specifications or can be construed more broadly to cover other non-traditional, minimal-movement input methods.
2. A key structural question will be one of architectural scope: How closely must an accused product's physical form match the patent's language describing a shape that "compliments the splayed underside-architecture of a user's hand" or is located in a "concavity"? This will determine whether the patents' reach is confined to the specific sculptural forms shown or extends to a wider range of ergonomic designs.