DCT
2:19-cv-00351
Genuine Enabling Technology LLC v. Nintendo Co Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Genuine Enabling Technology LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Nintendo Co., Ltd. (Japan) and Nintendo of America Inc. (Washington)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP; Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto
- Case Identification: 2:19-cv-00351, D. Del., 02/08/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because acts of infringement have been committed in the District of Delaware, and Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction there through sales of the accused products.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Nintendo Wii console systems, including the Wii Remote controllers, infringe a patent related to combining a standard user-input data stream with a secondary input signal into a single data stream for transmission over one communication link.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for integrating multiple input sources (e.g., pointing device movements and accelerometer data) into a single peripheral device without requiring separate communication channels or computer resources for each source.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings involving the patent-in-suit. It alleges that Defendants' knowledge of the patent began with the service of the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-06-20 | ’730 Patent Priority Date |
| 2001-04-17 | ’730 Patent Issue Date |
| 2017-02-08 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,219,730, "Method and Apparatus for Producing a Combined Data Stream and Recovering Therefrom the Respective User Input Stream and at Least One Additional Input Signal," issued April 17, 2001.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem of limited computer resources, such as interrupt request (IRQ) services and direct memory access (DMA) channels, which are consumed by each new input/output (I/O) device connected to a computer. This makes it cumbersome and inefficient to add multiple functionalities, like a mouse and a microphone, which would traditionally require separate hardware cards and resources (’730 Patent, col. 1:12-32).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a single apparatus that functions as a standard user-input device (UID), like a mouse, while also receiving a separate, additional input signal (e.g., from a microphone or other sensor). It then combines the data stream from the UID and the data stream from the additional signal into a single, "combined data stream" that can be sent to the computer over a single communication link, thus conserving computer resources (’730 Patent, col. 2:17-27; Fig. 2A). The core components are a "UI means" for user input, a "converter" for the additional signal, and a "framer" to synchronize and encode the two streams together (’730 Patent, col. 4:4-17).
- Technical Importance: This approach enabled the creation of more complex, multi-modal peripheral devices that could offer richer user interaction without the configuration conflicts and resource limitations inherent in adding multiple, distinct hardware devices to a computer system (’730 Patent, col. 2:51-58).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent claims 16 and 21, along with dependent claims 22, 23, 24, and 25 (Compl. ¶22).
- Independent Claim 16 requires:
- An apparatus linked to a computer by a communication link, functioning as a user input device and receiving an additional input signal.
- A user input device that produces a user input stream.
- An input port that receives at least one input signal.
- A converter that receives the input signal to produce an input stream.
- A framer that synchronizes the user input stream with the input stream and encodes them into a combined data stream for transfer over the communication link.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The "Nintendo Wii console system, the Nintendo Wii Remote and the Nintendo Wii Remote Plus" (collectively, "the Nintendo Products") (Compl. ¶4).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint focuses on the Nintendo Wii Remote controller as the infringing apparatus (Compl. ¶23). It alleges the Wii Remote functions as a user input device that communicates wirelessly via a Bluetooth link to the Nintendo Wii console (Compl. ¶24). The relevant functionality includes traditional user inputs from buttons, which produce a "user input stream," and motion-sensing inputs from one or more accelerometers, which provide an "input signal" (Compl. ¶24). The complaint alleges these two distinct types of input are combined within the controller and transmitted to the console over the single Bluetooth link (Compl. ¶24). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’730 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 16) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An apparatus linked to a computer by a communication link, functioning as a user input device and additionally receiving at least one input signal... | The Nintendo Wii Remote controller is a user input device that communicates with a Nintendo Wii console via a Bluetooth communication link. | ¶24 | col. 8:56-59 |
| a user input device producing a user input stream; | The buttons and associated components on the Nintendo Wii Remote controller produce a user input stream. | ¶24 | col. 8:60-61 |
| an input port receiving at least one input signal; | The Nintendo Wii Remote controller includes a Bluetooth micro-controller (e.g., the BCM2042 micro-controller) that receives at least one input signal from one or more accelerometers (e.g., ADXL330 accelerometer) in the Nintendo Wii Remote controller. | ¶24 | col. 8:62-63 |
| a converter receiving the at least one input signal for producing an input stream; and | The input signal from the accelerometer (e.g., ADXL330 accelerometer) is converted into an input stream by a converter (e.g., an analog-to-digital converter) in the Nintendo Wii Remote controller. | ¶24 | col. 8:64-66 |
| a framer synchronizing the user input stream with the input stream and encoding the same into a combined data stream transferable by the communication link. | The Bluetooth micro-controller (e.g., the BCM2042 micro-controller) synchronizes the user input stream with the input stream and encodes them into a combined data stream that is transferable from the Nintendo Wii Remote controller to the Nintendo Wii console via a Bluetooth communication link. | ¶24 | col. 8:67-col. 9:4 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "computer," as used in the patent, can be construed to read on a specialized "video game console" like the Nintendo Wii. The patent’s background discusses components of general-purpose personal computers, such as sound cards and fax/modems (’730 Patent, col. 1:18-20), which may suggest a narrower scope.
- Technical Questions: The infringement theory attributes the "framer" function to the Bluetooth micro-controller (Compl. ¶24). The patent, particularly in its detailed embodiment in FIG. 4A, describes a "framer" with specific logic tied to serial communication timing signals (e.g., "relies on the signal of line TXD to maintain the synchronization") (’730 Patent, col. 5:20-22). A dispute may arise over whether the accused micro-controller's method for combining data packets is structurally and functionally equivalent to the "framer" disclosed in the patent, or if it represents a distinct, non-infringing technology.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "framer"
Context and Importance: This term is critical as it defines the core component responsible for combining the two separate data streams. The infringement analysis depends on whether the accused Nintendo Wii Remote’s Bluetooth micro-controller performs the function of the claimed "framer."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is defined functionally in claim 16 as a means for "synchronizing the user input stream with the input stream and encoding the same into a combined data stream" (’730 Patent, col. 9:1-4). This functional language could support an interpretation covering any component that achieves this result, regardless of specific implementation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a detailed hardware implementation of the framer that "relies on the signal of line TXD to maintain the synchronization" and uses a clock generator and data selector in a specific configuration tied to RS-232 signal timing (’730 Patent, FIG. 4A; col. 5:20-46). A party could argue that these specific operational details limit the scope of "framer" to such hardware-based synchronization logic, as opposed to a more general software-based data packet assembly within a microcontroller.
The Term: "computer"
Context and Importance: The preamble of claim 16 requires the apparatus to be "linked to a computer." Whether a Nintendo Wii console qualifies as a "computer" under the patent's meaning is fundamental to infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent uses the term "computer" broadly throughout the specification without an explicit definition that would exclude a video game console (’730 Patent, col. 1:12).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The "Background of the Invention" section frames the problem in the context of a general-purpose computer, referencing "sound card[s]," "fax/modem device[s]," and "plug-and-play technology," all of which were features of personal computers in the late 1990s (’730 Patent, col. 1:12-32). This context may support an interpretation limiting the term "computer" to a general-purpose PC and not a specialized gaming device.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement based on Defendants’ knowledge of the patent (as of the complaint's filing) and their encouragement of infringement by end-users. This encouragement is alleged to occur through the creation and distribution of "instructional manuals, product manuals and other technical materials" that instruct users on how to operate the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶29). Contributory infringement is also alleged, based on the assertion that the accused products are specially adapted for an infringing use and have no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶35-36).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are based on knowledge of the ’730 patent acquired "at least as early as the service of Plaintiff's Complaint in this action" (Compl. ¶17). This pleading appears to support a claim for post-suit willful infringement only.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "computer," which the patent describes in the context of 1990s-era personal computers and their peripherals, be construed to cover a specialized, closed-system video game console like the Nintendo Wii? The outcome of this claim construction dispute could be dispositive.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mapping: does the accused Wii Remote's architecture, which uses an analog-to-digital converter and a general-purpose Bluetooth microcontroller, embody the distinct claimed structures of a "converter" and a "framer"? The case may turn on whether the specific hardware-based synchronization logic detailed for the "framer" in the patent specification is found to be a requirement of the claim, and if the accused microcontroller's operation differs materially from that specific implementation.