Better Mouse Co LLC v. J Tech Digital Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Better Mouse Company, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: J-Tech Digital, Inc. (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC
• Case Identification: 4:23-cv-00921, S.D. Tex., 03/13/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is a Texas corporation deemed to reside in the district, maintains its principal place of business in the district, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s computer mice with on-device, adjustable sensitivity (DPI) infringe a patent related to setting mouse resolution using a physical switch rather than computer software.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns a hardware-based method for adjusting computer mouse sensitivity, a feature that allows users to quickly change cursor speed for different tasks, such as gaming or graphic design.
• Key Procedural History: No prior litigation, licensing history, or other significant procedural events are mentioned in the complaint.

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 Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the inconvenience of adjusting mouse resolution using software drivers or tools installed on a connected computer, noting that users may not understand the software, may lose the installation media, or may find the process cumbersome (’200 Patent, col. 1:23-33).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a computer mouse that incorporates a physical "switching circuit" directly on the mouse itself. This allows a user to manually adjust the displacement resolution (DPI) without interacting with any software on the host computer. A microcontroller within the mouse detects the state of the physical switch and sets the corresponding resolution value, which is then used to control cursor movement (’200 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:49-60).
• Technical Importance: This approach decouples a core hardware setting from host-computer software, aiming to simplify the user experience and make resolution adjustments more immediate and convenient (’200 Patent, col. 3:45-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 6 (Compl. ¶17).
• The essential elements of independent Claim 6 are:
  • A X-Y axis plane displacement detector for sensing mouse movement.
  • An "N-stage switch" with a button for being manually switched to one of N positions to set a resolution value.
  • A mouse microcontroller with a register, coupled to the detector and the switch, that:
    • Determines the resolution value based on the switch's state.
    • Sets the mouse resolution based on that value.
    • Stores the resolution value in the register.
    • Provides a control signal to the computer based on the sensed movement and the stored resolution value.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the prayer for relief seeks judgment for infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. p. 8, ¶A).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint names fifteen models of J-Tech Digital computer mice, including various ergonomic, vertical, and gaming mice, referred to collectively as the "Accused Products" (Compl. ¶12). The J-Tech Digital V913 Wireless Ergonomic Mouse is identified as an "exemplary Accused Product" (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Products are alleged to feature an adjustable DPI (dots-per-inch) function that allows users to change mouse sensitivity (Compl. ¶12, ¶17). This functionality is controlled via a physical "DPI button" on the mouse, which enables the user to "cyclically switch DPI" between multiple preset levels (e.g., 800, 1200, 1600 DPI) without using a software driver on the connected computer (Compl. ¶8, ¶19). An image from the product's marketing materials depicts the location of the DPI button and describes its function (Compl. p. 6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’200 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused products' single, cyclical push-button for DPI selection meets the claim limitation of "a switching button capable of being manually switched to one of positions 1 to N." The defense may argue this language contemplates a multi-position selector switch (like a slide switch) rather than a button that cycles through states. The patent specification illustrates both multi-switch DIP configurations and a single "N-stage switch" with a "switching button" (’200 Patent, Fig. 2, Fig. 5), the interpretation of which will be critical.
  • Technical Questions: While the complaint provides external marketing materials and photographs of internal components (Compl. p. 6, p. 7), it does not provide direct evidence of the microcontroller's specific internal operations. A point of contention may be whether the accused microcontroller performs all the claimed functions, such as "determining the resolution value based on the state of the connected resolution setting pins" and "storing the resolution value in the register" in the precise manner claimed.

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 viability of the infringement allegation hinges on the construction of this term. The accused products use a single button to cycle through DPI settings. Whether this mechanism is encompassed by the claim language will be a focal point. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused functionality (cyclical switching) is not an explicit embodiment described in the patent, raising a potential mismatch.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's summary describes the invention more broadly as having a "switching circuit, having at least one switch" for setting the resolution (’200 Patent, col. 2:51-52). This could suggest the specific form of the switch is not intended to be limiting. The use of the term "N-stage switch" itself in Claim 6 could be argued to be a functional term encompassing any switch that achieves N discrete states.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed embodiments illustrate either a bank of DIP switches (each with an on/off position) or a single switch with a button that appears to move between discrete physical locations (’200 Patent, Fig. 2, Fig. 5, col. 3:23-28). A party could argue that "switched to one of positions 1 to N" requires the ability to select any position directly, rather than being forced to cycle through them in a fixed order.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief requests judgment for indirect infringement (Compl. p. 8, ¶A). However, the body of the complaint focuses on direct infringement and does not plead specific facts to establish the knowledge and intent elements required for induced or contributory infringement, though it references user manuals attached as exhibits (Compl. ¶21).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint seeks enhanced damages for willful infringement (Compl. p. 8, ¶B). It does not, however, allege any specific supporting facts, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent or objective recklessness.

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "a switching button capable of being manually switched to one of positions 1 to N," which is described in the patent in the context of DIP switches and a multi-positional switch, be construed to cover the single, cyclical push-button used in the accused mice?
2. A second issue will be evidentiary: what evidence can be developed through discovery to demonstrate that the accused products' internal microcontroller performs the specific sequence of claimed functions (determining based on pin state, setting resolution, storing in a register) as alleged in the complaint, which currently relies on external product features and high-level assertions?