DCT
2:23-cv-00302
American GNC Corp v. Nintendo Co Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: American GNC Corp (California)
- Defendant: Nintendo Co., Ltd. (Japan) and Nintendo of America Inc (Washington)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bunsow De Mory LLP
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00302, W.D. Wash., 03/03/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Washington because Defendant Nintendo of America, Inc. is a Washington corporation with its principal place of business in the district, and because Defendant Nintendo Co., Ltd. is a foreign corporation.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Nintendo Switch family of game consoles and controllers, which incorporate motion-sensing capabilities, infringe two patents related to Micro-Electrical-Mechanical Systems (MEMS) for inertial measurement.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns MEMS-based Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs), which are miniaturized sensor packages used to detect and measure motion, such as rotation and acceleration, and are now ubiquitous in consumer electronics.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff first notified Defendant of the asserted patents and the alleged infringement in April 2017, providing detailed claim charts. This was followed by an in-person meeting in October 2017 and subsequent communications, during which Defendant repeatedly declined to license the technology.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-09-16 | ’122 Patent Priority Date |
| 2000-01-04 | ’648 Patent Priority Date |
| 2003-01-21 | ’122 Patent Issue Date |
| 2003-12-30 | ’648 Patent Issue Date |
| 2017-03-03 | Accused Nintendo Switch Launch Date |
| 2017-04-26 | Plaintiff allegedly notifies Defendant of infringement |
| 2017-10-20 | Alleged in-person meeting between Plaintiff and Defendant |
| 2017-12-20 | Plaintiff allegedly provides follow-up letter to Defendant |
| 2019-09-01 | Accused Nintendo Switch Lite Launch Date (approx.) |
| 2023-03-03 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,508,122 - "Microelectromechanical system for measuring angular rate" (Issued Jan. 21, 2003)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for angular rate sensors that overcome the high cost, large size, and significant power consumption of conventional gyros. It notes that prior MEMS-based sensors, while promising, lacked the "high accuracy, keen sensitivity, wide dynamic range, and high stability" required for many applications (’122 Patent, col. 1:33-36, col. 2:1-4).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a three-part system fabricated on a single silicon chip: an angular rate sensor unit, a central processing circuitry, and a digital signal processing system. The sensor unit physically detects motion, the central circuitry processes the raw sensor signals, and the digital signal processing system analyzes those signals and provides a feedback signal to control the sensor unit, creating a closed loop that improves stability and accuracy (’122 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:16-64). The patent's Figure 1 shows a high-level block diagram of this three-part architecture (’122 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This integrated, closed-loop approach aimed to enable the production of small, reliable, and inexpensive MEMS gyroscopes that were suitable for a wide range of commercial applications previously limited by the cost and size of inertial sensors (’122 Patent, col. 1:50-56).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1.
- Claim 1 requires:
- A microelectromechanical system (MEMS) for measuring angular rate of a carrier, comprising:
- an angular rate sensor unit that receives and outputs various signals in response to motion;
- a central circuitry that receives signals from the sensor unit and outputs angular rate signals and digital low frequency inertial element displacement signals; and
- a digital signal processing system that analyzes the displacement signals and feeds back dither driver signals to the sensor unit.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶62).
U.S. Patent No. 6,671,648 - "Micro inertial measurement unit" (Issued Dec. 30, 2003)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent states that at the time of invention, MEMS angular rate sensors and accelerometers had not been successfully integrated into a single Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) that simultaneously offered "high performance, small size, and low power consumption" (’648 Patent, col. 2:46-50).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a complete micro IMU that combines multi-axis MEMS angular rate sensors and multi-axis MEMS acceleration sensors in a single, compact unit. This unit includes a dedicated producer that receives the raw electrical signals from all sensors and converts them into digital angular increments and digital velocity increments, which are the fundamental outputs for navigation and control systems (’648 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:53-7:3). Figure 19 of the patent illustrates an embodiment with X, Y, and Z axis sensors connected to an Application-Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC) chip that performs the processing (’648 Patent, Fig. 19).
- Technical Importance: By integrating multi-axis rate and acceleration sensing with digital processing in one micro-sized unit, the invention aimed to provide a complete, low-cost inertial navigation building block for a variety of emerging applications, from automotive to handheld devices (’648 Patent, col. 2:10-18).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1.
- Claim 1 requires:
- A micro inertial measurement unit, comprising:
- an angular rate producer with X, Y, and Z axis angular rate detecting units;
- an acceleration producer with X, Y, and Z axis accelerometers; and
- an angular increment and velocity increment producer, electrically connected to the sensors, that receives their electrical signals and converts them into digital angular increments and digital velocity increments.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶86).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are the Nintendo Switch, Nintendo Switch Lite, Nintendo Joy-Con controllers, and Nintendo Pro Controller (collectively, "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶57).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the motion-sensing capabilities critical to the user experience in the Accused Products are enabled by integrated MEMS IMU components (Compl. ¶59). Specifically, the complaint identifies the STMicroelectronics "iNEMO" 6-axis IMU (models LSM6DS3H and LSM6DS3TR) as the infringing component within the Accused Products (Compl. ¶¶49, 50). The complaint includes a teardown image of a Nintendo Switch Joy-Con circuit board highlighting the location of this STMicroelectronics IMU chip (Compl. ¶49, p. 19). The complaint further alleges that the Nintendo Switch platform has been highly successful, selling over 122 million consoles worldwide, and that motion controls are essential to the gameplay of many of its best-selling titles (Compl. ¶¶46, 59).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’122 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) for measuring angular rate of a carrier | The STMicroelectronics LSM6DS3 family IMU included in each Accused Product is alleged to be a MEMS that measures the angular rate of the console or controller. | ¶63 | col. 4:16-24 |
| an angular rate sensor unit receiving dither driver signals, capacitive pickoff excitation signals and a displacement restoring signal and outputting angle rate signals... | The MEMS gyroscope structure within the STMicroelectronics IMU allegedly uses a driving structure to oscillate a proof mass, corresponding to receiving dither driver signals, and uses capacitive sensing to detect Coriolis forces, corresponding to the other signal functions. | ¶64, ¶66 | col. 4:40-49 |
| a central circuitry receiving said angle rate signals ... and outputting angular rate signals and digital low frequency inertial element displacement signals | The "Gyroscope chain" circuitry within the STMicroelectronics IMU, as shown in its datasheet, is alleged to receive angle rate signals, perform an analog-to-digital conversion, and output digital angular rate signals and displacement signals. A block diagram from the datasheet is provided as evidence. (Compl. ¶69, p. 29). | ¶69, ¶71 | col. 4:50-57 |
| a digital signal processing system analyzing said digital low frequency inertial element displacement signals and feeding back said dither driver signals to said angular rate sensor unit | Circuitry within the STMicroelectronics IMU, identified as a Phase-Locked Loop (PLL) and a Proportional-Integral (PI) controller in technical documents, allegedly analyzes displacement signals to perform phase locking and amplitude control, and feeds back driving signals to the MEMS structure. | ¶72, ¶74 | col. 4:58-64 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Structural Questions: A central question may be whether the highly integrated STMicroelectronics IMU chip can be conceptually and evidentiarily separated into the three distinct structural elements required by claim 1: an "angular rate sensor unit", a "central circuitry", and a "digital signal processing system". A defendant could argue that the accused chip is a single, indivisible integrated circuit whose functions do not map cleanly onto the claimed three-part architecture.
- Technical Questions: The analysis will question whether the internal operations of the accused IMU's feedback loop, which the complaint alleges to be a "PLL," perform the specific function of "analyzing said digital low frequency inertial element displacement signals" as required by the claim, or if it operates on different principles.
’648 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a micro inertial measurement unit | The STMicroelectronics LSM6DS3 family IMU is identified as a "system-in-package featuring a 3D digital accelerometer and a 3D digital gyroscope," and is alleged to be the claimed micro inertial measurement unit. | ¶87, ¶50 | col. 6:53-55 |
| an angular rate producer comprising a X axis..., a Y axis..., and a Z axis angular rate detecting unit... | The 3-axis gyroscope within the STMicroelectronics IMU is alleged to be the angular rate producer that detects and produces electrical signals for rotation on all three axes. A diagram from the datasheet showing the detectable angular rate axes is referenced. (Compl. ¶88, p. 35). | ¶88 | col. 6:53-56 |
| an acceleration producer comprising a X axis..., a Y axis..., and a Z axis accelerometer... | The 3-axis accelerometer within the STMicroelectronics IMU is alleged to be the acceleration producer that detects and produces electrical signals for acceleration on all three axes. | ¶89 | col. 6:56-59 |
| an angular increment and velocity increment producer, which is electrically connected with said...units and...accelerometers...and converts the...signals into...digital angular increments and digital velocity increments... | A microprocessor, alleged to be "on the LSM6DS3 or elsewhere on the Accused Product," utilizes a sensor fusion algorithm to receive signals from the gyroscope and accelerometer and convert them into digital increments. A diagram of the sensor fusion input and output is provided. (Compl. ¶90, p. 37). | ¶90, ¶92 | col. 6:60-7:3 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges the "angular increment and velocity increment producer" is a microprocessor "on the LSM6DS3 or elsewhere on the Accused Product" (Compl. ¶90). This phrasing raises the question of whether the claim can be construed to cover processing performed by the main CPU of the Switch console, which is physically separate from the STMicroelectronics IMU chip. The physical location and boundaries of the claimed "producer" will likely be a key point of dispute.
- Technical Questions: The analysis will question what evidence shows that the "sensor fusion algorithm" performs the specific claimed function of converting electrical signals into "digital angular increments and digital velocity increments," as opposed to other forms of processed motion data.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
’122 Patent: "central circuitry"
- The Term: "central circuitry"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the intermediate processing block between the physical sensor and the digital feedback system. Its construction is critical because the infringement argument depends on mapping this claimed element to a specific portion of the accused STMicroelectronics chip's integrated logic. Practitioners may focus on whether this term requires a structurally distinct hardware component or can be met by a set of functions within a larger integrated processor.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent claims "a central circuitry receiving said angle rate signals ... and outputting angular rate signals and digital low frequency inertial element displacement signals," which is a functional description that could be read broadly onto any circuitry performing those functions (’122 Patent, col. 9:48-54).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and Figure 6 illustrate the "central circuitry" with a specific arrangement of amplifiers, filters, and demodulators (’122 Patent, col. 7:61-8:64; Fig. 6). A defendant may argue the term should be limited to this disclosed embodiment or its equivalents.
’648 Patent: "angular increment and velocity increment producer"
- The Term: "angular increment and velocity increment producer"
- Context and Importance: This element performs the core conversion from raw sensor signals to usable digital motion data. Its definition is central to the dispute, particularly regarding its physical location. The complaint's allegation that this "producer" could be "elsewhere on the Accused Product" (Compl. ¶90) highlights this as a likely battleground for claim construction.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires the producer to be "electrically connected" with the sensors and to perform a specific conversion function, without explicitly limiting its physical location to the same substrate as the sensors (’648 Patent, col. 24:12-21). This could support an interpretation where the producer is a separate processor (e.g., the console's main CPU) running software.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract describes a "micro inertial measurement unit" that "obtains highly accurate motion measurements," and Figure 19 depicts the processing "ASIC chip" as part of the same interconnected sensor assembly (’648 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 19). This may suggest that the "producer" is intended to be an integral part of the self-contained IMU, not a general-purpose processor elsewhere in the end-product.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Nintendo induced infringement by providing the Accused Products to customers with knowledge and intent that their normal operation would infringe, and by providing components and instructions to licensed manufacturers (Compl. ¶¶78-79, 97-98). It further alleges contributory infringement, stating the accused systems are a material part of the invention, are especially adapted for infringing use, and are not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶¶80, 99).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Nintendo's purported knowledge of the Asserted Patents since at least April 26, 2017. The complaint states that on this date, American GNC sent a letter with "highly detailed claim charts" demonstrating infringement by the Nintendo Switch. This was allegedly followed by meetings and further communications where Nintendo continued to use the technology without a license (Compl. ¶¶39-42, 81, 100).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case presents foundational questions of claim scope at the intersection of hardware and software in a highly integrated electronic device. The outcome may turn on the court’s determination of the following issues:
- A primary issue will be one of structural interpretation: Can the discrete, three-part system of a "sensor unit", "central circuitry", and "digital signal processing system" claimed in the ’122 patent be found in the monolithic, integrated architecture of the accused STMicroelectronics IMU, or is there a fundamental structural mismatch?
- A second core issue will be one of locational scope: Does the term "angular increment and velocity increment producer" in the ’648 patent require the processing to occur within the IMU component itself, or can the claim be construed to cover sensor fusion algorithms running on the main processor of the Nintendo Switch console, which is physically separate from the MEMS sensor chip? The resolution of this question will define the boundary of the claimed invention.