DCT
2:17-cv-00093
Kevique Technology LLC v. Razer USA Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Kevique Technology, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Razer USA Ltd. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ferraiuoli LLC
- Case Identification: 2:17-cv-00093, 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 offering for sale, selling, and advertising the accused products to consumers within the region.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Razer Edge Pro" tablet infringes a patent related to methods for controlling a graphical object on a display using a motion-sensing input device.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the user interface for pointing devices, specifically addressing the ergonomic problem of moving an on-screen object over a distance greater than the comfortable physical range of motion of the device.
- 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 |
|---|---|
| 2007-02-06 | ’483 Patent Priority Date |
| 2010-10-05 | ’483 Patent Issue Date |
| 2017-01-27 | Complaint Filing Date |
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"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,808,483, "System, Device, and Method for Extending a Stroke of a Computer Pointing Device," issued October 5, 2010.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the inconvenience users face when needing to move a graphical object (like a cursor) across a screen by an amount that requires more physical travel space than is available or comfortable, often forcing the user to lift and reposition the pointing device. This procedure is described as "extremely bothersome." (’483 Patent, col. 1:44-53).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a computer input device (e.g., a mouse) with a motion sensor and a separate "input element" (e.g., a button). When the user operates the input element, the system's response to the motion sensor is altered. The system can either inhibit the cursor's movement entirely, or reverse its direction, allowing the user to make large, continuous on-screen movements through a series of smaller, back-and-forth physical motions without lifting the device from the surface. (’483 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:3-8). Figure 3 illustrates how moving a mouse (106) in one physical direction (301) can cause the on-screen graphical object (300) to move in the opposite direction (302) when the feature is active. (’483 Patent, FIG. 3).
- Technical Importance: The invention claims to provide a method for extended cursor movement that is more ergonomic and less disruptive than the standard technique of lifting and repositioning the mouse. (’483 Patent, col. 1:54-61).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶22).
- Essential Elements of Claim 1:
- A computer input device comprising a sensor to sense movement and generate a first signal, and an input element to generate a second signal.
- The device is adapted to transmit data to a processor to move a graphical object corresponding to the first signal.
- In response to the second signal, either (a) the processor's responsiveness to the first signal is inhibited, or (b) the correspondence of movement is reversed.
- This functionality 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" when the input element is activated.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the infringement allegations are for "at least" claim 1. (Compl. ¶26).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Razer Edge Pro" tablet computer is identified as the Accused Instrumentality. (Compl. ¶16).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the "Razer Edge Pro" is a computer input device that includes an accelerometer sensor and a touchscreen. (Compl. ¶16). The accelerometer senses the physical rotation of the tablet, and this signal (the "first signal") instructs a processor to rotate the on-screen graphical display to match (e.g., from portrait to landscape view). (Compl. ¶17, ¶19).
- The complaint alleges that the tablet's touchscreen functions as the "input element." Specifically, a user can tap an "Auto-rotate screen icon" on the display, which generates a "second signal." (Compl. ¶18, ¶20). In response to this second signal, the tablet's responsiveness to the accelerometer is inhibited, preventing the screen from rotating even if the device is turned. (Compl. ¶20).
- The complaint alleges that this auto-rotate lock functionality operates on an application-by-application basis, asserting it is available in the "settings application" but not in other environments like the "camera, games, or third party applications." (Compl. ¶21). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’483 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a sensor configured to sense movement of the input device and, for each sensed movement, generate a respective first signal indicating the respective sensed movement | The "Razer Edge Pro" includes an Accelerometer sensor configured to sense rotation of the device and generate a first signal indicating the sensed rotation. | ¶17 | col. 5:60-64 |
| an input element configured to generate a second signal when operated | The "Razer Edge Pro" has a touch display that functions as an input element, which can be operated by tapping an "Auto-rotate screen icon" to generate a second signal. | ¶18 | col. 6:53-56 |
| the computer input device is adapted for transmitting to a processor data for instructing the processor to move a graphical object in a direction corresponding to a direction of the movement indicated by the respective first signal | The first signal from the accelerometer is transmitted to a processor to move a graphical object (the screen display) in a direction corresponding to the device's rotation. | ¶19 | col. 5:1-6 |
| in response to the generation of the second signal, one of: (a) responsiveness to the first signal by the processor is inhibited... | In response to the second signal (tapping the icon), responsiveness to the first signal from the accelerometer is inhibited, turning off screen rotation. | ¶20 | col. 7:15-24 |
| functionality... is provided on an application-by-application basis, such that the functionality is conditional upon that the graphical object being in an active display environment of one of a predefined subset of a plurality of applications when the input element is initially activated. | The functionality to inhibit rotation is allegedly provided on an application-by-application basis, available in some environments (e.g., settings panel) but not in others (e.g., camera, games). | ¶21 | col. 10:21-28 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint's theory raises questions about the scope of key claim terms. For instance, does the term "computer input device", which the patent illustrates exclusively as a peripheral mouse (’483 Patent, FIG. 1, 2), read on a self-contained tablet computer? Furthermore, does the term "graphical object", described in the patent's context as a cursor or pointer within a GUI (’483 Patent, col. 1:13-14), encompass the rotation of the entire screen display of an application?
- Technical Questions: A central technical question is whether sensing the physical "orientation" of a tablet via an accelerometer is equivalent to sensing the "movement" of an input device across a surface as described in the patent. (’483 Patent, col. 1:44-53). Another question is whether the accused product’s auto-rotate lock, which may be a global setting that some applications choose to ignore, meets the specific limitation that the functionality is "conditional upon" the active application at the time the input element is activated.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "computer input device"
Context and Importance: The infringement theory depends on construing the accused "Razer Edge Pro" tablet itself as the "computer input device." Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's specification and figures exclusively depict a peripheral mouse connected to a separate computer terminal. (’483 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 3).
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim term itself is facially broad and not explicitly limited to peripherals. The complaint alleges the Accused Instrumentality as a whole is a "computer input device." (Compl. ¶16).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the invention in the context of a "computer mouse" used to "manipulate an object... on a graphical user interface (GUI)." (’483 Patent, col. 1:8-11). All embodiments shown are of a peripheral mouse. (’483 Patent, FIG. 2, 6, 7).
The Term: "graphical object"
Context and Importance: The complaint alleges that the rotating screen display of the accused tablet is the "graphical object." The definition of this term is critical because the patent seems to contemplate a discrete object, such as a cursor, moving within a larger, static display area.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "graphical object" is not explicitly defined and could arguably encompass any visual element on a screen, including the entire display of an application.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The Background section refers to a "graphical pointer, cursor, or other object." (’483 Patent, col. 1:13-14). Figure 3 depicts the graphical object (300) as a distinct arrow icon moving on a monitor (108), separate from the overall display.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not include a count for indirect or contributory infringement. It alleges only direct infringement by Defendant. (Compl. ¶¶ 24-26).
- 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 appears to support a claim for post-filing willfulness, and the prayer for relief requests enhanced damages. (Compl. p. 8, ¶e).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim terms of the ’483 patent, which are rooted in the technical context of a peripheral mouse controlling a cursor's position on a desktop monitor, be construed to cover the accused functionality of a self-contained tablet's accelerometer controlling the orientation of the entire screen display? This will likely involve claim construction of "computer input device", "graphical object", and "movement".
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: does the accused tablet’s auto-rotate lock feature operate on the specific conditional logic required by the "application-by-application basis" limitation in Claim 1, or is there a fundamental mismatch in how the software enables and applies this functionality compared to what the claim recites?