Better Mouse Co LLC v. Xebec Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Better Mouse Company, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Xebec, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC
• Case Identification: 6:22-cv-01277, W.D. Tex., 12/14/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Texas because the Defendant maintains its principal place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "The Mouse" computer mouse infringes a patent related to an on-device hardware switch for adjusting cursor resolution (DPI) without requiring external software.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns a user-facing feature in computer peripherals, specifically computer mice, that allows for on-the-fly adjustment of sensitivity, a feature often marketed to gamers and professional users for enhanced control.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or specific licensing history concerning the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

• 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 describes the prior art method of adjusting a computer mouse's resolution as "inconvenient," requiring the user to install and navigate a software driver or tool on the host computer, a process which could be confusing or impossible if the software media was lost (’200 Patent, col. 1:24-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a mouse with a built-in physical switching circuit that allows a user to directly select a resolution setting on the mouse itself. A microcontroller within the mouse reads the state of the switch and adjusts the cursor's movement sensitivity accordingly, eliminating the need for any software on the connected computer (’200 Patent, col. 1:46-55; col. 2:56-65). This is illustrated in the patent's block diagram, which shows a "switching circuit" providing input to a "mouse micro controller" (’200 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows for direct, rapid adjustment of mouse sensitivity by the user, independent of the host computer's software or operating system (’200 Patent, col. 3:45-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "at least Claim 6" (’200 Patent, col. 4:26-54; Compl. ¶12). Claim 6 is an independent apparatus claim.
• The essential elements of independent Claim 6 include:
  • A "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."
  • A "mouse micro controller with a register" that is coupled to the detector and the switch and performs several functions:
    • Determining the resolution value based on the state of the switch's "connected resolution setting pin."
    • Setting and storing the mouse resolution in the register.
    • Responding to the detector's movement signals to generate a control signal for the computer, with cursor movement being "directly based on the resolution value stored in the register."
• The complaint's prayer for relief seeks judgment for infringement of "at least one or more claims," suggesting the right to assert other claims may be reserved (Compl. p. 7, ¶A).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are the "Xebec computer mice marketed simply as 'The Mouse'" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused mouse includes an "Adjustable DPI button for fine-tuned mouse sensitivity" (Compl. ¶12). A product screenshot included in the complaint clarifies that this button allows the user to "Cycle through three different options: 600, 800 & 1200 DPI" (Compl. p. 6).
• This button is located on the top surface of the mouse, behind the scroll wheel, allowing the user to change sensitivity settings during operation (Compl. p. 5). The complaint describes this as a hardware-based feature for setting resolution, distinct from any software-based tool (Compl. ¶6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’200 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused product's single, cycling "DPI button" (Compl. p. 5) constitutes an "N-stage switch ... having a switching button capable of being manually switched to one of positions 1 to N" as recited in the claim. The defense could argue this language implies a switch with multiple, physically distinct positions (like a slider or DIP switch, as shown in the patent's embodiments) rather than a single button that cycles through states.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the presence and function of a specific "mouse micro controller with a register" (Compl. ¶15). A key evidentiary question will be whether discovery and technical analysis confirm that the accused device's controller performs all of the specific determination, setting, storing, and control functions as precisely required by the claim language.

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: This term is critical because it defines the physical interface for setting the resolution. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused product's single, cycling DPI button falls within the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused device's implementation (a single button) appears different from the patent's explicit embodiments (multi-position DIP switches and slider switches).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes an embodiment with an "N-stage switch 31" and a "switching button 311" that "can be switched to position [i] (i=1~N)" (’200 Patent, col. 3:23-26). Plaintiff may argue that "position" can refer to a logical state (e.g., DPI level 1, 2, or 3) and is not limited to a physical location on the switch itself.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s figures and corresponding descriptions explicitly show a "DIP (Dual In-line Package) switch" with multiple individual switches (’200 Patent, Fig. 2, col. 3:19-22) and a slider-style "N-stage switch" with a button that moves between physical locations (’200 Patent, Fig. 5). Defendant may argue that these embodiments limit the term "positions 1 to N" to physically distinct and selectable positions.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief includes a request for judgment on indirect infringement (Compl. p. 7, ¶A). However, the complaint body does not plead specific factual allegations to support either induced infringement (e.g., knowledge and intent to encourage infringement via user manuals) or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint seeks enhanced damages for willful infringement (Compl. p. 7, ¶B). The complaint does not, however, allege any facts to support willfulness, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent or objectively reckless conduct.

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction and scope: can the term "N-stage switch... manually switched to one of positions 1 to N," which is exemplified in the patent with multi-position physical switches, be construed to cover the accused product's single button that cycles through a set of logical DPI states?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: what proof will demonstrate that the accused mouse’s internal microcontroller performs the precise sequence of functions recited in Claim 6—specifically, determining resolution based on "the state of the connected resolution setting pins" and moving the cursor "directly based on the resolution value stored in the register"? The detailed allegations in the complaint will require corresponding technical evidence for substantiation.