Better Mouse Co LLC v. HP Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Better Mouse Company, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: HP, Inc. (Delaware) and Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson LLP
• Case Identification: 2:17-cv-00316, E.D. Tex., 04/14/2017
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has transacted business and committed alleged acts of patent infringement in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s gaming mice, specifically the HP X9000 OMEN mouse, infringe a patent related to an apparatus for adjusting mouse cursor resolution using a physical switch on the mouse itself, without requiring external software.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses on-the-fly adjustment of computer mouse sensitivity (dots-per-inch or DPI), a feature of particular importance in the computer gaming market where users may need to rapidly switch between high-precision aiming and fast cursor movement.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,532,200 - "Apparatus for Setting Multi-Stage Displacement Resolution of a Mouse"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,532,200, “Apparatus for Setting Multi-Stage Displacement Resolution of a Mouse,” issued May 12, 2009 (the “’200 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the inconvenience of prior art methods for adjusting mouse resolution, which typically required a user to install and navigate a software driver or tool on the connected computer (’200 Patent, col. 1:15-33; Compl. ¶8). This process was identified as potentially difficult for users and impossible if the software media (e.g., a CD-ROM) was lost (’200 Patent, col. 1:24-33; Compl. ¶8).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a mouse that incorporates a physical switching circuit directly on the mouse body, allowing a user to manually select one of multiple predefined resolution levels (’200 Patent, col. 2:38-45). A microcontroller within the mouse detects the state of the switch and adjusts the mouse’s resolution accordingly, eliminating the need for any software interaction on the host computer for this specific function (’200 Patent, col. 2:51-55, Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: This approach provides a method for direct and rapid adjustment of mouse resolution, which the complaint notes is advantageous for activities like computer gaming (Compl. ¶7).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "at least Claim 6" of the ’200 Patent (Compl. ¶12).
• Independent Claim 6 recites the key elements of the apparatus, including:
  • An "X-Y axis plane displacement detector" for sensing mouse movement.
  • An "N-stage switch for setting a resolution value," which has a "switching button capable of being manually switched to one of positions 1 to N" and activates a "connected resolution setting pin."
  • A "mouse micro controller with a register" that is coupled to the detector and the switch, determines the resolution based on the switch's state, stores the value, and provides a control signal to the computer to move the cursor based on that stored resolution value.
• The complaint also alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the patent (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the "HP X9000 OMEN mouse" as an exemplary accused product, as well as other unspecified "computer mice and other devices" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the accused product as a performance-oriented mouse marketed with features such as "on-the-fly sensitivity adjustability" (Compl. p. 4).
• Marketing materials included in the complaint state the mouse offers "8 levels" of sensitivity ranging from 400 to 8200 DPI and features "6 programmable buttons, including right/left click, DPI sensitivity, scrolling, and dual thumb buttons" (Compl. p. 4).
• A promotional image of the HP X9000 OMEN mouse depicts a button located behind the scroll wheel, a common placement for DPI adjustment controls (Compl. p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’200 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: Claim 6 requires an "N-stage switch" with a button "capable of being manually switched to one of positions 1 to N." The accused product is advertised as having a "DPI sensitivity" button, which may function by cycling through presets with each press rather than moving between discrete physical positions. This raises the question of whether a cycling-style button meets the "switched to one of positions 1 to N" limitation, or if the claim is limited to switches with physically distinct positions, such as the slider or DIP switches shown in the patent's figures (’200 Patent, Figs. 2, 4).
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the accused product has a microcontroller that determines resolution based on the state of a "connected resolution setting pin" (Compl. ¶¶15, 16). What evidence the complaint provides to support this specific internal architecture, as opposed to an alternative firmware-based method where a button press triggers a software routine within the mouse's memory to change the DPI setting, is a central technical question for infringement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "N-stage switch ... having a switching button capable of being manually switched to one of positions 1 to N"
• Context and Importance: The construction of this term appears central to the dispute. A narrow construction may require a physical switch with multiple, distinct, selectable positions (e.g., a dial or slider). A broader construction could encompass a single button that electronically cycles through N predefined states. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused product's physical design (a single DPI button) appears to differ from the specific switch embodiments (DIP switches, slider switch) illustrated in the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's stated object is to provide resolution adjustment "without using software driver or tool" (’200 Patent, col. 2:44-45). An argument could be made that any hardware-based control on the mouse that selects one of N resolution states without host computer software achieves this objective and falls within the scope of the term.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly describes embodiments using a "DIP (Dual In-line Package) switch" and an "N-stage switch 31" with a "switching button 311" that can be "switched to position [i]" (’200 Patent, col. 3:19-26, Fig. 4). The use of the word "positions" itself suggests distinct physical locations, which could support an interpretation limited to the types of switches shown in the patent's figures.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a specific count for willful infringement or plead facts alleging pre-suit knowledge by the Defendant. However, the prayer for relief requests "increased damages to which BMC is entitled under 35 U.S.C. § 284" and a declaration that this is an "exceptional case" warranting attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. p. 6, ¶¶ c, e).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction: does the claim term "N-stage switch...capable of being manually switched to one of positions 1 to N" require a hardware control with multiple, discrete physical positions as depicted in the patent’s embodiments, or can it be construed more broadly to read on a single button that electronically cycles through a set of predefined resolution levels?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: can the plaintiff demonstrate that the accused mouse’s internal architecture functions by "activating a connected resolution setting pin to indicate a state," as required by the claim, or does it utilize a different firmware-based implementation that achieves a similar end result without mirroring the claimed structure?