Kevique Technology LLC v. NVIDIA Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Kevique Technology, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: NVIDIA Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ferraiuoli LLC
• Case Identification: Kevique Technology, LLC v. NVIDIA Corporation, 2:17-cv-00091, E.D. Tex., 01/27/2017
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant conducts substantial business in the district, including making, using, offering for sale, and selling the accused products, and because a portion of the alleged infringements occurred there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s SHIELD TABLET K1 infringes a patent related to methods for controlling a graphical object on a display by selectively inhibiting or reversing its response to the physical movement of an input device.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses user interface control, specifically providing a way to manage the on-screen movement of graphical objects in response to to physical device manipulation without requiring large movements or repositioning of the device.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is the initiating document in this litigation. No prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history concerning the patent-in-suit are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,808,483 - "System, Device, and Method for Extending a Stroke of a Computer Pointing Device"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the inconvenience for users of pointing devices, such as a computer mouse, when a desired on-screen movement of a graphical object requires a physical movement of the device that is uncomfortably large, goes beyond the edge of a mouse pad, or requires the user to lift and reposition the device (’483 Patent, col. 1:32-53).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a computer input device with a sensor to detect physical movement and an additional input element (e.g., a button). Activating this input element generates a second signal that alters how the system responds to the first (movement) signal. The response can either be inhibited (the on-screen object stops moving despite physical device movement) or reversed (the object moves in the opposite direction of the device's physical movement), allowing for extended cursor travel without lifting the device (’483 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:3-8).
• Technical Importance: This method provided a way to extend the effective operational range of a pointing device through a software-based control mechanism, mitigating the physical constraints of the user's workspace (’483 Patent, col. 1:54-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶22, 26).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • A computer input device comprising a sensor to detect movement and generate a first signal, and an input element to generate a second signal.
  • The device is adapted to transmit data for moving a graphical object in a direction corresponding to the device's movement.
  • In response to the second signal, the processor's responsiveness to the first signal is either (a) inhibited or (b) reversed.
  • This functionality (inhibition or reversal) is provided on an "application-by-application basis," conditional on the graphical object being in an active display environment of a "predefined subset of a plurality of applications."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the NVIDIA "SHIELD TABLET K1" as the Accused Instrumentality (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the SHIELD TABLET K1 includes an accelerometer sensor that senses movement (e.g., rotation of the tablet) and generates a first signal, and a touchscreen that functions as an input element to generate a second signal (e.g., a tap) (Compl. ¶16-18).
• The first signal from the accelerometer instructs the processor to move a graphical object, which the complaint identifies as the screen display itself, by rotating its orientation between portrait and landscape views (Compl. ¶19).
• The second signal, generated when a user taps the on-screen "Auto-rotate screen icon," inhibits the processor's responsiveness to the first signal, thereby locking the screen orientation (Compl. ¶20).
• The complaint alleges this functionality operates on an application-by-application basis, stating that locking rotation for the "settings panel" does not apply in other environments like the camera or games (Compl. ¶21).
• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the product's commercial importance or market positioning.
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 7,808,483 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The complaint's infringement theory raises questions about the scope of key claim terms. The patent’s specification heavily focuses on a peripheral mouse controlling a cursor on a screen. The complaint alleges infringement by a self-contained tablet where the "input device," "sensor," and "display" are integrated, and where the "graphical object" is the entire screen view. This raises the question of whether the term "computer input device", as used in the patent, can be construed to read on an integrated tablet, and whether "graphical object" can be construed to mean the entire display orientation rather than a discrete object like a cursor (’483 Patent, col. 5:53-54).
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the auto-rotate lock is provided on an "application-by-application basis" for a "predefined subset" of applications (Compl. ¶21). A technical question for the court will be whether the accused functionality operates as a conditional rule for a specific subset of applications as claimed, or as a global system setting that certain applications are simply programmed to override.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "computer input device"

• Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical because the patent’s disclosure exclusively describes a peripheral computer mouse, while the accused product is an integrated tablet. The outcome of the case may depend on whether the term is limited to peripherals or can encompass an all-in-one device like a tablet.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims use the general term "computer input device", not "mouse." The specification also mentions that the processing system could be embodied in devices like a "personal digital assistant (PDA), laptop computer, [or] notebook computer," which could suggest a context broader than traditional desktop computers with mice (’483 Patent, col. 5:23-26).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The entirety of the detailed description, including the problem statement (running out of mousepad space) and all seven figures, exclusively depicts and describes a computer mouse as the "input device" (’483 Patent, col. 1:32-41; FIGs. 1-7). This consistent focus may be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to peripherals.

• The Term: "graphical object"

• Context and Importance: Plaintiff's infringement theory posits that the entire rotating screen display is the "graphical object". Defendant may argue this mischaracterizes the term, which the patent exemplifies with discrete, intra-application elements. The viability of the infringement allegation hinges on this construction.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification introduces its examples with the phrase "a non-exclusive list of graphical objects includes a cursor, an arrow, and/or slide bar," which implies the term is not limited to only those examples (’483 Patent, col. 5:53-54).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Every specific example of a "graphical object" provided in the patent is an object within a graphical user interface (GUI), such as a cursor or slide bar, that is moved on the display. The patent does not describe re-orienting the entire display itself as movement of a "graphical object" (’483 Patent, FIG. 3).

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of its infringement "at least as of the service of the present complaint" (Compl. ¶25). This allegation, if proven, could support a claim for enhanced damages for post-suit infringement, as requested in the prayer for relief (Compl., p. 8, ¶e). The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "graphical object," which the patent exemplifies as a cursor or slide bar, be construed to cover the re-orientation of the entire display canvas of the accused tablet?
• A second central question will concern the scope of the apparatus: does the term "computer input device," disclosed in the patent exclusively as a peripheral mouse, read on a self-contained tablet where the sensor, housing, and display are integrated into a single unit?
• Finally, a key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: does the accused auto-rotate lock function based on a conditional rule applied to a "predefined subset" of applications, as required by the claim, or is it a global setting that individual applications can choose to override, potentially creating a mismatch with the claim language?