Resonant Systems Inc v. Nintendo Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Resonant Systems, Inc., d/b/a RevelHMI (Washington)
  • Defendant: Nintendo Co., Ltd. (Japan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ August & Kabat
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00090, E.D. Tex., 01/31/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendant is a foreign corporation, for which venue is proper in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Nintendo Switch gaming console infringes a patent related to linear vibration motors used for generating haptic feedback.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns haptic feedback systems, which generate tactile sensations (vibrations) and are widely used in consumer electronics, particularly video game controllers, to enhance user immersion.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent and its alleged infringement, and that it rejected Plaintiff’s good-faith attempts to license the technology.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2009-05-18	Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,860,337
2014-10-14	U.S. Patent No. 8,860,337 Issued
2025-01-31	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,860,337 - "Linear vibration modules and linear-resonant vibration modules"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,860,337, "Linear vibration modules and linear-resonant vibration modules," issued October 14, 2014.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art vibration systems, typically based on unbalanced rotating motors, as inefficient, prone to rapid mechanical wear, and limited to producing elliptical vibrations within a narrow range of frequencies and amplitudes (’337 Patent, col. 2:11-68).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a linear vibration module where a moveable component (a "weight" or "mass") is driven back and forth in a linear path by electromagnets whose polarity is rapidly alternated (’337 Patent, Abstract). A control system, potentially including a CPU and sensors for feedback, manages the power supplied to the electromagnets to control the oscillation, allowing for the generation of vibrations across a wide range of frequencies and amplitudes (’337 Patent, col. 6:1-35; Fig. 6).
• Technical Importance: This approach seeks to provide more precise, efficient, and durable haptic effects compared to traditional spinning-mass motors, enabling a richer and more varied tactile experience in electronic devices (’337 Patent, col. 8:51-68).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 2 (’337 Patent, col. 16:1-17; Compl. ¶9).
• The essential elements of independent claim 2 are:
  • a housing;
  • a moveable component;
  • a power supply;
  • user-input features;
  • a driving component that drives the moveable component in each of two opposite directions within the housing; and
  • a control component that controls the power supply to cause the moveable component to oscillate at a frequency and an amplitude specified by user input;
  • wherein the control component drives simultaneous oscillation of the moveable component at two or more frequencies to generate complex vibration modes.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, though this is common practice.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products include the Nintendo Switch console and its associated controllers, which incorporate "linear vibration motor technology" (Compl. ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the Accused Products utilize linear vibration motors to provide haptic feedback to users during gameplay (Compl. ¶9).
• The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the specific operation of the accused haptic system.
• The Nintendo Switch is a commercially significant product in the video game market, and its haptic feedback is a prominent feature.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products directly infringe at least claim 2 of the ’337 Patent (Compl. ¶9). It states that a claim chart comparing claim 2 to the Accused Products is attached as Exhibit 1 (Compl. ¶9). However, this exhibit was not provided with the complaint, which prevents a detailed, element-by-element analysis of the Plaintiff’s infringement theory. The narrative allegation is that the "linear vibration motor technology" in the Nintendo Switch meets all limitations of the asserted claim (Compl. ¶9).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the interpretation of "specified by user input." The question is whether this requires a user to directly set numerical frequency and amplitude values, or if it can be read more broadly to cover in-game actions that trigger pre-programmed haptic effects.
• Technical Questions: A key technical question will be whether the accused Nintendo Switch haptic system in fact "drives simultaneous oscillation... at two or more frequencies to generate complex vibration modes." The evidence will need to show not just that the device produces varied vibrations, but that it does so using the specific multi-frequency method claimed, such as generating a beat-wave form, as opposed to simply modulating the amplitude or frequency of a single waveform over time (’337 Patent, col. 13:20-32).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"specified by user input"

• Context and Importance: This term is critical because infringement depends on how the accused device's haptic response is linked to user action. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine whether triggering pre-set vibration profiles via gameplay qualifies as the user "specifying" the frequency and amplitude.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification mentions user controls can include "dials, pushbuttons, switches, or other electromechanical-control devices," which could suggest that any user action that selects a mode or triggers an event meets the limitation (’337 Patent, col. 5:20-22).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the frequency and amplitude to be "specified." This could be argued to imply a direct, independent setting of both parameters by the user, not just the triggering of a pre-determined effect where those parameters are fixed by the game developer. The control program described is said to set a "strength" variable based on a "user-selected strength of operation" (’337 Patent, col. 5:52-56), which may suggest a more direct form of specification.

"complex vibration modes"

• Context and Importance: This term is explicitly tied to the functional requirement of driving oscillation at "two or more frequencies simultaneously." The viability of the infringement claim will depend on whether the accused device’s method for creating nuanced vibrations meets this specific technical definition.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself provides a definition: a mode generated by "simultaneous oscillation... at two or more frequencies." A plaintiff may argue that any waveform that is not a simple, single-frequency sine wave—and can be mathematically decomposed into multiple frequencies—meets this definition.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples, such as a "primary operational frequency... with an added modulating 1 Hz operational frequency" or a "lower-frequency beat-wave form" created by combining two distinct driving frequencies (’337 Patent, col. 13:20-32; Figs. 22B, 23). A defendant could argue the term is limited to these specific types of physically super-imposed waveforms, rather than other methods of creating complex sensations.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), asserting that Nintendo had knowledge of the ’337 Patent through pre-filing communications and the complaint itself, and that it actively encourages infringement by its subsidiaries and customers (Compl. ¶10).

Willful Infringement

• The complaint alleges that Nintendo’s infringement was willful, deliberate, and unreasonable, justifying enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 (Compl. ¶13). This allegation is based on Nintendo’s purported knowledge of the patent and its alleged rejection of "Plaintiff’s attempts to license its technology in good faith" (Compl. ¶13).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the phrase "frequency and an amplitude specified by user input" be construed to cover a video game controller triggering pre-programmed haptic profiles based on a player's in-game actions, or does it require more direct user control over the vibration parameters?
• A second central issue will be one of technical proof: what evidence will emerge from the accused device's hardware and software to show whether it generates vibrations through "simultaneous oscillation... at two or more frequencies," as the patent claims, or through an alternative technical method of producing varied tactile feedback? The outcome will likely depend on whether the accused system's operation maps onto the specific "complex vibration modes" disclosed in the patent.