DCT
2:07-cv-01752
Copper Innovations Group LLC v. Nintendo Co Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Copper Innovations Group, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Nintendo Co., Ltd. (Japan); Nintendo of America Inc. (Washington); Sony Corporation (Japan); Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. (Japan); and Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Watkins Dulac & Roe P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:07-cv-01752, W.D. Pa., 12/27/2007
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged on the basis that Defendants sell the accused products nationwide, including within the Western District of Pennsylvania. The complaint also notes that the inventor of the patent-in-suit resides in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ video game consoles and associated wireless controllers infringe a patent related to methods for establishing a unique communication link between a specific remote transmitter and a receiver.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the communication protocols used in wireless input devices for consumer electronics, a technology critical for multi-player video game systems that must manage signals from multiple controllers simultaneously without interference.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff holds an exclusive license to the patent-in-suit. A post-filing Ex Parte Reexamination of the patent-in-suit, which concluded in 2012, confirmed the patentability of asserted claims 1-4 but cancelled asserted claims 5 and 6. This development significantly narrows the dispute to the communication protocol claims, rather than the physical structure of the controllers.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1991-10-04 | '152 Patent Priority Date |
| 1997-06-17 | '152 Patent Issue Date |
| 2007-12-27 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 5,640,152 - "Hand Held Computer Input Apparatus and Method"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,640,152, "Hand Held Computer Input Apparatus and Method," issued June 17, 1997.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes two interrelated problems. First, it notes the ergonomic and functional limitations of existing computer input devices like the mouse, which requires a dedicated flat surface, and joysticks or trackballs, which can make certain graphical interface actions like "dragging" awkward (ʼ152 Patent, col. 1:41-col. 2:24). Second, it addresses the technical challenge of ensuring a receiver (e.g., a game console) communicates only with its intended wireless transmitter (a controller) in an environment where multiple transmitters may be active, thus preventing signal interference (ʼ152 Patent, col. 11:11-20).
- The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a hand-held input device using pressure-sensitive potentiometers to control a cursor (ʼ152 Patent, col. 2:44-50). However, the asserted claims focus on the communication method. The patented method involves each transmitter having a unique "identification number" ('152 Patent, col. 12:4-6). To establish a unique pairing, a transmitter sends a "connect data packet" to the equipment, which then designates that transmitter's ID as the only one it will accept. The equipment subsequently "rejects" all transmissions that do not contain this designated ID, thereby creating an exclusive communication link ('152 Patent, col. 12:7-20). This logical connection is maintained until the receiver is powered off or a new connection is initialized ('152 Patent, col. 11:45-49).
- Technical Importance: This protocol for pairing a specific wireless controller to a console was a key enabler for the market growth of multi-player console gaming, which requires a robust method for managing multiple simultaneous, interference-free wireless inputs.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-6 (Compl. ¶¶10, 13). Independent claims 1, 2, and 4 were confirmed in a subsequent reexamination, while claims 5 and 6 were cancelled.
- Independent Claim 1 (Method):
- transmitting an identification number as a part of each transmission from each transmitter to the equipment,
- comparing the identification number in each transmission received by the equipment with a previously designated identification number,
- rejecting each transmission received by the equipment which does not contain said previously designated identification number, and
- designating said previously designated identification number by transmitting a connect data packet from one of the plurality of transmitters to the equipment.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims, including claim 3 (Compl. ¶¶10, 13).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are Nintendo’s Wii Console, Wii Remote Controller, and Wii Nunchuck Controller; and Sony’s Playstation 3 Consoles (including the 20GB, 40GB, 60GB, and 80GB models), Sony SIXAXIS Controller, and Sony Blu-Ray Remote Control for Playstation 3 (Compl. ¶¶10, 13).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint identifies the accused products as video game and entertainment systems that utilize wireless remote controllers to interact with a base console (Compl. ¶¶10, 13). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical operation of these systems, instead alleging that their use infringes the '152 patent.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a claim chart. The following table summarizes the infringement theory for Claim 1 that is implied by the allegations against the accused products.
'152 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) transmitting an identification number as a part of each transmission from each transmitter to the equipment, | The accused wireless controllers (e.g., Wii Remote, SIXAXIS) are alleged to transmit a unique identifier as part of their signal to the associated console. | ¶10, ¶13 | col. 12:4-6 |
| (b) comparing the identification number in each transmission received by the equipment with a previously designated identification number, | The accused consoles (Wii, Playstation 3) are alleged to receive signals and compare the identifier within the signal to an ID that was previously stored during a "syncing" or pairing process. | ¶10, ¶13 | col. 12:7-9 |
| (c) rejecting each transmission received by the equipment which does not contain said previously designated identification number, and | The accused consoles are alleged to ignore or otherwise not act upon signals received from controllers whose identifiers do not match the stored, designated ID. | ¶10, ¶13 | col. 12:10-13 |
| (d) designating said previously designated identification number by transmitting a connect data packet from one of the plurality of transmitters to the equipment. | The initial pairing process for the accused controllers is alleged to involve the controller sending a special signal or packet to the console to establish the exclusive communication link and store its ID. | ¶10, ¶13 | col. 12:14-17 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern whether the "syncing" processes of the accused Wii and Playstation 3 systems, which often involve pressing physical buttons on both the controller and the console, constitute "transmitting a connect data packet" as required by the claim. The definition of "rejecting" will also be critical: does passively ignoring a signal from an un-paired controller meet this limitation, or is an affirmative filtering step required?
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused consoles perform the specific logic of actively comparing every incoming signal's ID with a stored ID and then affirmatively "rejecting" non-matches? The underlying software architecture of the accused systems will be central to resolving this question.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "connect data packet"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the mechanism that establishes the "previously designated identification number." Its construction is critical to determining whether the initial pairing or "sync" functions of the accused products fall within the scope of claim 1(d).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes this packet being sent when an "initiation or wake-up switch" is pressed, suggesting it could be any signal that initiates a logical connection ('152 Patent, col. 11:40-44).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes a "protocol packet" that "begins with an ASCII standard SOH flag and terminates with a checksum byte" ('152 Patent, col. 10:60-63). A party could argue that a "connect data packet" must conform to this more specific disclosed structure.
The Term: "rejecting"
- Context and Importance: This term in claim 1(c) is key to the infringement analysis. Whether the accused consoles "reject" signals from un-paired controllers will depend heavily on the court's interpretation of the word.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the receiver "verifies that the transmitter ID contained in the protocol pack is valid," which implies that transmissions with invalid IDs are not processed, effectively rejecting them ('152 Patent, col. 11:32-34). This could support an interpretation where "rejecting" includes ignoring a signal.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that "rejecting" implies an active, affirmative step of discarding a received transmission after it has been identified as non-matching, as opposed to a passive failure to process a signal that the receiver was never configured to listen for.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement, aiding and abetting, and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶¶10, 13). While no specific facts are detailed, this allegation is presumably based on the theory that Defendants provide the infringing systems and instruct end-users on how to pair and use the controllers, thereby causing direct infringement of the claimed method by the users.
- Willful Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks enhanced damages for willful infringement (Compl. p. 4, ¶B). The body of the complaint, however, does not plead specific facts to support this claim, such as allegations of pre-suit knowledge of the '152 patent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "connect data packet," as described in the patent, be construed broadly enough to read on the proprietary "syncing" protocols used by the Nintendo and Sony systems, or is it limited to the specific packet structure disclosed in the specification?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: can the plaintiff demonstrate through technical evidence, such as source code review, that the accused consoles’ operating software performs the precise sequence of steps claimed—specifically, the "comparing" and "rejecting" of signals from non-designated controllers—as opposed to employing a different technical method to achieve a similar outcome?
- The impact of the reexamination will be significant. With the device-focused claims (5-6) having been cancelled post-filing, the case is now entirely focused on the communication protocol claims (1-4). This shifts the battleground from the physical design of the controllers to the software and communication logic within the consoles and their interaction with the remotes.