DCT

2:03-cv-00295

Minebea Co Ltd v. Chicony Elec Co Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:03-cv-00295, W.D. Wash., 02/11/2003
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendants reside in the Western District of Washington.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s computer keyboards infringe a patent related to a mechanical keytop leveling mechanism.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns stabilizer mechanisms for non-standard or oversized keyboard keys, designed to ensure they remain level and actuate smoothly when pressed off-center.
  • 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
1983-02-22 U.S. Patent No. 4,433,225 Priority Date
1984-02-21 U.S. Patent No. 4433225 Issued
2003-02-11 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 4,433,225 - "Keytop Levelling Mechanism"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 4,433,225, "Keytop Levelling Mechanism", issued February 21, 1984 (the "’225 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem with "oddly-shaped keytops," such as L-shaped keys used for functions like "Enter" or "Shift" on a computer keyboard. When these keys are pressed on a portion not directly above the underlying keyswitch, they can bind or tilt, preventing proper actuation. This issue is particularly acute for low-profile keyboards where the switch itself provides minimal support. (’225 Patent, col. 1:4-8, 41-48).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention solves this problem with a "scissors-like linkage" mounted underneath the extended, or "cantilevered," portion of the keytop (’225 Patent, Abstract). This linkage, comprising two lever arms joined by a central pivot, connects the underside of the keytop to a frame on the keyboard's circuit board (’225 Patent, col. 3:24-29, 60-65). When any part of the key is pressed, the linkage collapses in a controlled, scissor-like fashion, ensuring the entire keytop travels downward evenly and remains level relative to the circuit board (’225 Patent, col. 2:37-44). The patent, attached as Exhibit A to the complaint, includes a cross-sectional diagram showing the linkage in its extended state beneath the keytop (Compl., Ex. A, p. 8, Fig. 3).
  • Technical Importance: The described mechanism allows for "full top surface utilization" of non-standard keys, providing a stable and reliable feel regardless of where the user presses, which was an important factor in keyboard design and usability (’225 Patent, col. 1:39-40, 61-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of "at least one claim" but does not specify which ones (Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A keytop having a main portion and a cantilevered stem portion, used with a keyswitch on a circuit board.
    • A "pair of lever arms joined at intermediate portions thereof by a pivot to form a scissors-like linkage" with four ends.
    • "means for pivotally mounting" the first and second ends of the linkage to the keytop's stem portion.
    • "means for pivotally mounting" the third and fourth ends to joints adjacent to the circuit board.
    • "means for enabling at least two of said first, second, third, and fourth ends to slide in addition to pivot."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses "computer keyboards" that Defendants manufacture, sell, offer for sale, and import (Compl. ¶¶9, 12).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not identify specific keyboard models or provide any technical description of the mechanism used in the accused products. It alleges that Chicony Electronics and its subsidiary Chicony America are manufacturers, sellers, and importers of computer keyboards (Compl. ¶¶5, 6). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' specific functionality or market positioning.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint makes general allegations of infringement without providing a claim chart or mapping specific product features to claim limitations. It alleges that the manufacture, use, sale, and importation of Defendants' computer keyboards infringe the ’225 Patent (Compl. ¶12). Due to the lack of specific factual allegations, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Questions: The central issue will be factual and evidentiary: do the accused Chicony keyboards actually contain a "scissors-like linkage" mechanism that corresponds to the one described and claimed in the ’225 Patent? The complaint provides no evidence on this point.
    • Scope Questions: Many limitations in claim 1 are drafted in "means-plus-function" format (e.g., "means for pivotally mounting"). A primary legal dispute will concern the scope of these terms. The analysis will require first identifying the corresponding structure disclosed in the patent's specification for performing the recited function, and then determining whether the accused keyboards employ an identical or structurally equivalent mechanism (’225 Patent, col. 4:49-61). The interpretation of what constitutes a structural "equivalent" will be a key point of contention.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide a basis for identifying specific claim construction disputes. However, based on the claim language, certain terms are likely to be critical.

  • The Term: "means for enabling at least two of said first, second, third, and fourth ends to slide in addition to pivot"
  • Context and Importance: This is a means-plus-function limitation governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 (pre-AIA). Its construction is fundamental to the infringement analysis. To infringe, an accused device must perform the identical function (enabling both sliding and pivoting at two or more ends of the linkage) with a structure that is the same as, or equivalent to, the specific structure disclosed in the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement determination will depend entirely on a comparison between the accused device's structure and the patent's disclosed structure.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party seeking a broader scope may point to language suggesting alternatives are contemplated, such as the statement that "it is not mandatory that the sliding joints be provided in the keytop; they can alternatively be provided adjacent the circuit board" (’225 Patent, col. 4:45-48). This suggests that the precise location of the sliding mechanism is not rigidly fixed to the single embodiment shown.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific corresponding structure: "a keytop block mounted within said cantilevered portion, said keytop block including first and second slots into which studs, projecting from said first and second ends respectively, protrude to provide a mounting allowing both pivoting and sliding motion" (’225 Patent, col. 4:15-21). A party arguing for a narrower scope would contend that the claim is limited to this "stud-in-slot" design and its structural equivalents, potentially excluding different types of sliding joints.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes conclusory allegations of both induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and contributory infringement under § 271(c) (Compl. ¶¶13, 14). It does not allege specific facts to support the requisite knowledge and intent for inducement, nor does it allege facts regarding the sale of non-staple components for contributory infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement is willful, based on the assertion that "Defendants are and have been aware of the '225 Patent" (Compl. ¶¶11, 16). The complaint does not provide any specific facts regarding when or how Defendants allegedly became aware of the patent.

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

  • An Evidentiary Question of Structure: The threshold issue is factual: what is the actual construction of the key stabilizers, if any, within the accused Chicony keyboards? The complaint’s lack of technical detail means that discovery will be necessary to determine if the accused products contain any mechanism that could be asserted to practice the claims of the ’225 Patent.
  • A Legal Question of Equivalence: Should a relevant mechanism be found, the case will likely turn on a question of claim construction, specifically the scope of the "means-plus-function" limitations. The core legal dispute will be whether the structure in the accused keyboards is identical or structurally equivalent to the specific stud-and-slot arrangements disclosed in the ’225 Patent’s specification.
  • A Factual Question of Knowledge: For the willfulness allegation to proceed, a key question will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence of Defendants' pre-suit knowledge of the ’225 Patent and objective recklessness, as the complaint's current allegation is unsupported by specific facts.