DCT

2:23-cv-00712

Immersion Corp v. Valve Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00712, W.D. Wash., 05/15/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Washington because Defendant Valve Corporation's corporate headquarters and principal place of business are located in Bellevue, Washington, within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Steam Deck handheld gaming systems and Valve Index virtual reality systems infringe seven patents related to haptic feedback technology.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on haptic technology, which provides tactile feedback (e.g., vibrations, textures, forces) to users of electronic devices to enhance immersion and usability in gaming and virtual environments.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation between the parties, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings involving the patents-in-suit, or relevant licensing history.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-11-01 ’260 Patent Priority Date
2003-11-26 ’507 Patent Priority Date
2006-12-27 ’042 Patent Priority Date
2008-02-26 ’260 Patent Issue Date
2012-08-29 ’546 Patent Priority Date
2014-06-10 ’507 Patent Issue Date
2014-12-23 ’907 Patent Priority Date
2015-08-25 ’546 Patent Issue Date
2016-08-30 ’042 Patent Issue Date
2016-12-13 ’738 Patent Priority Date
2018-06-15 ’067 Patent Priority Date
2020-04-21 ’907 Patent Issue Date
2020-05-26 ’067 Patent Issue Date
2021-11-16 ’738 Patent Issue Date
2023-05-15 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,336,260 - Method and Apparatus for Providing Tactile Sensations

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Conventional electronic devices such as mobile phones and PDAs provided limited tactile feedback, forcing users to rely on visual or audible confirmation for inputs, which is difficult in distracting environments or for users with visual impairments (’260 Patent, col. 1:16-2:13).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses providing different tactile sensations based on different levels of pressure applied to an input device (’260 Patent, Abstract). This allows a single button or input area to convey more nuanced information through touch, such as confirming different functions based on how hard a user presses, without requiring visual attention (’260 Patent, col. 6:50-57).
  • Technical Importance: This approach enabled richer, non-visual user interaction on compact electronic devices by linking multiple haptic responses to a single physical input based on pressure level (Compl. ¶34).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶54).
  • Claim 1 requires a computer-readable medium with instructions for a processor to perform the following sequential steps:
    • detect a first pressure on a first input device;
    • provide a first tactile sensation to the first input device, based at least in part on the first pressure;
    • detect a second pressure on the first input device, the second pressure greater than the first pressure;
    • provide a second tactile sensation to the first input device, based at least in part on the second pressure;
    • detect a third pressure on the first input device, the third pressure greater than the second pressure; and
    • provide a third tactile sensation to the first input device.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for the ’260 Patent.

U.S. Patent No. 8,749,507 - Systems and Methods for Adaptive Interpretation of Input from a Touch-sensitive Input Device

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: On conventional touchpads, it is often difficult for a system to distinguish a user's intent to make a positional change (e.g., moving a cursor) from an intent to make a control input (e.g., clicking a button), as both actions involve the user's finger contacting the touchpad surface (’507 Patent, col. 1:44-53).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method to more reliably interpret user intent by defining a "press" gesture based on a combination of three conditions: the pressure level exceeding a threshold, the rate of change in pressure exceeding a threshold, and a time interval having elapsed (’507 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:6-14). Upon detecting this specific gesture, the system outputs a confirming haptic effect.
  • Technical Importance: This method allows for more accurate gesture recognition on touch-sensitive surfaces by differentiating intentional presses from incidental touches, thereby improving usability and providing clear tactile confirmation of an action (Compl. ¶35).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶87).
  • Claim 1 requires a method comprising:
    • receiving contact data from an input device;
    • determining an interaction with a displayed object on a screen based on the contact data;
    • responsive to the interaction, determining a gesture based on the contact data, which includes determining a "press" if three conditions are met: (1) pressure is greater than a pressure threshold, (2) change in pressure is greater than a change in pressure threshold, and (3) a first interval has elapsed; and
    • responsive to determining the gesture, outputting a haptic effect.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for the ’507 Patent.

U.S. Patent No. 9,430,042 - Virtual Detents Through Vibrotactile Feedback

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes providing "virtual detents"—simulated tactile clicks or stops—through vibrotactile feedback on an input device like a touchpad (Compl. ¶36). This is intended to mimic the feel of mechanical feedback on non-mechanical surfaces, providing users with tactile cues during interactions like scrolling through a menu (’042 Patent, col. 1:29-42).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶127).
  • Accused Features: The Steam Deck's trackpads, which are alleged to provide vibrotactile effects for behaviors such as "Scroll Wheel" and "Directional Pad" navigation (Compl. ¶¶142, 147-148).

U.S. Patent No. 9,116,546 - System for Haptically Representing Sensor Input

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a system for generating haptic effects based on sensor inputs, including "extra-sensory information" that a human cannot normally perceive (Compl. ¶37). The system receives input from a sensor, maps it to a haptic signal, sends the signal to an actuator, and modulates the haptic effect as new sensor input is received (’546 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 5 (Compl. ¶155).
  • Accused Features: The Valve Index's SteamVR Tracking system, which uses base stations (sensors) to track the real-time position of controllers in a room ("extra-sensory information") and provides corresponding haptic feedback through actuators in the controllers (Compl. ¶¶158, 164-165, 173-174).

U.S. Patent No. 10,627,907 - Position Control of a User Input Element Associated with a Haptic Output Device

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for defining multiple, partially overlapping position ranges for a user input element (a primary range, a secondary range, and a boundary range) and rendering a haptic effect when the element enters the boundary range (Compl. ¶38). This allows for nuanced feedback at specific points in an input element's travel, such as a trigger pull (’907 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶191).
  • Accused Features: The Steam Deck's analog triggers, which allow for the configuration of "Trigger Range Start" and "Trigger Range End" to define deadzones, allegedly creating the claimed primary, secondary, and boundary ranges where haptic effects occur (Compl. ¶¶197, 201-203, 206).

U.S. Patent No. 10,665,067 - Systems and Methods for Integrating Haptics Overlay in Augmented Reality

  • Technology Synopsis: The technology relates to AR/VR systems where a "proxy object" (e.g., a physical controller) is tracked by a sensor (Compl. ¶39). The system determines a modified visual effect (e.g., a virtual hand) and a haptic effect based on the sensor data, and transmits these effects to a display and to haptic actuators on the proxy object, respectively (’067 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 11 (Compl. ¶213).
  • Accused Features: The Valve Index system, where the controllers act as "proxy objects" with haptic actuators, and their tracked movements determine the appearance of virtual hands on the display and the generation of haptic feedback (Compl. ¶¶220, 229-230).

U.S. Patent No. 11,175,738 - Systems and Methods for Proximity-based Haptic Feedback

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses generating haptic feedback based on signals from two different types of sensors: a proximity sensor that detects a non-contact interaction (e.g., a finger approaching a surface) and a touch sensor that detects physical contact (Compl. ¶40). A processor generates a haptic signal based on input from both sensor signals (’738 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 15 (Compl. ¶244).
  • Accused Features: The Valve Index controllers, which are alleged to use sensors for "finger tracking" that detect both proximity (e.g., a finger curling without touching) and touch/pressure, and use these combined inputs to generate haptic effects (Compl. ¶¶251, 260, 263-264).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Valve’s Steam Deck handheld gaming systems and its Valve Index augmented/virtual reality (AR/VR) systems, including their associated software (such as SteamVR and Steam Input) and games available on the Steam platform (Compl. ¶¶2-3).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Valve Index is an AR/VR system comprising a headset, base stations for tracking, and controllers. The complaint highlights the controllers' ability to track individual finger movements and incorporate haptic feedback to enhance immersion and manipulation of virtual objects (Compl. ¶44).
  • The Steam Deck is a handheld gaming system with a built-in controller layout that includes touch-pads and triggers. The complaint alleges it uses "advanced haptic feedback technology" integrated into its controllers to provide tactile feedback during gameplay, such as a rumble triggered by movement on its touch-pads (Compl. ¶¶45, 11).
  • Both systems are integrated with Valve's Steam platform, which serves as a digital marketplace for games. The complaint alleges that Valve exercises control over the accused instrumentalities by setting design requirements for developers, defining haptic APIs, and curating the game library (Compl. ¶¶46-48).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’260 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
[A] computer-readable medium having instructions, the instructions including instructions that cause a processor to: The Accused VR Instrumentalities run on a Steam Host PC with specified minimum processor requirements and use software (e.g., Unity, Unreal Engine) with instructions for the processor. ¶57 col. 4:11-20
detect a first pressure on a first input device; Users apply pressure to the Valve Index controller’s grip, which contains high-fidelity force sensors. The "Moondust" tech demo software reads this as a "squeeze" value. A screenshot shows a bar indicating a first level of squeeze pressure (Compl. p. 17). ¶¶63-64 col. 6:50-54
provide a first tactile sensation to the first input device, the first tactile sensation based at least in part on the first pressure; The "Moondust" source code allegedly triggers a haptic pulse when the "squeeze" value exceeds a certain threshold (e.g., 0.3f), with the pulse intensity based on the squeeze value. ¶¶67-68 col. 6:50-57
detect a second pressure on the first input device, the second pressure greater than the first pressure; In the "Moondust" demo, users apply greater squeeze pressure to crush a moon rock. A screenshot shows the squeeze bar at a higher level than for the first pressure (Compl. p. 19). ¶71 col. 6:50-54
provide a second tactile sensation to the first input device, the second tactile sensation based at least in part on the second pressure; The complaint alleges that the same haptic pulse functionality described for the first sensation is provided in response to the second pressure level. ¶74 col. 6:50-57
detect a third pressure on the first input device, the third pressure greater than the second pressure; Users allegedly apply a third, even greater pressure to complete the rock-crushing action. A screenshot shows the squeeze bar at a maximum level (Compl. p. 20). ¶77 col. 6:50-54
provide a third tactile sensation to the first input device. The complaint alleges that a third tactile sensation is provided in response to the third pressure, again referencing the same haptic pulse functionality. ¶80 col. 6:50-57
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether a single, continuously variable haptic pulse, whose intensity is modulated by the "squeeze" value via a linear interpolation function ("Mathf.Lerp"), constitutes three distinct tactile sensations as recited by the claim's sequential structure. The defense may argue this is one modulated sensation, not three separate ones.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that three discrete, increasing pressure thresholds are detected and that a distinct sensation is provided in response to each? The infringement theory for the second and third tactile sensations relies on the same code snippet cited for the first, raising the question of whether the allegations demonstrate distinct events or a continuous mapping of pressure to haptic intensity.

’507 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method comprising: receiving contact data from an input device; The Steam Deck's "Test Device Inputs" screen shows it receives contact data from its input devices, including a "Right Trackpad Click Pressure" value. A screenshot shows this interface (Compl. p. 25). ¶¶95, 98 col. 3:61-63
determining an interaction with a displayed object on a screen based on the contact data; In the Steam Deck's Desktop Mode, users can move the mouse cursor with the right trackpad, and hovering over an icon highlights it, constituting an interaction with a displayed object. ¶102 col. 3:61-63
responsive to determining the interaction, determining a gesture based on the contact data comprising: determining a pressure and a change in pressure based on the contact data, and The Steam Deck's controller layout settings for the trackpad define a "Left Mouse Click" with an "Activation Style" of "Simple Threshold" and a "Soft Press Threshold" value, which allegedly determines pressure and change in pressure. ¶¶105, 110-111 col. 4:1-10
determining a press if: the pressure is greater than a pressure threshold, the change in pressure is greater than a change in pressure threshold, and a first interval has elapsed; The complaint alleges that testing the Steam Deck's trackpad confirms that after an interval of time, once pressure passes the "Soft Press Threshold," the user feels haptics. For the Valve Index, the "Moondust" "crush" action is alleged to occur after a pressure threshold is passed for an interval of time. ¶¶106, 114 col. 2:9-14
responsive to determining the gesture, outputting a haptic effect. Testing the Steam Deck's trackpad click is alleged to output a haptic effect similar to a mouse click. The "Moondust" source code for the Valve Index triggers a haptic pulse when squeeze pressure exceeds a threshold. ¶¶117, 119 col. 2:12-14
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The claim requires a three-part test to determine a "press" (pressure > threshold, change in pressure > threshold, interval elapsed). The primary evidence cited for the Steam Deck is a settings menu for a "Simple Threshold." A key question will be whether this "Simple Threshold" functionality, as implemented, also performs the claimed "change in pressure" and "elapsed interval" checks.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide to show that the accused products separately measure or calculate "change in pressure" and an "elapsed interval" as distinct conditions for triggering the haptic effect, beyond the simple pressure threshold explicitly shown in the settings? The allegations for these elements rely on narrative descriptions of testing rather than direct documentary evidence.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’260 Patent:

  • The Term: "a first tactile sensation... a second tactile sensation... a third tactile sensation"
  • Context and Importance: This sequence of terms is central to the infringement analysis. The claim requires detecting three progressively greater pressures and providing three corresponding tactile sensations. The dispute may turn on whether a single, continuously varying haptic effect (as suggested by the cited source code) can be legally interpreted as three distinct sensations, or if the claim requires three qualitatively or temporally separate haptic events.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language states each sensation is "based at least in part on" its corresponding pressure, which could be read to cover a continuous intensity mapping where any point on the intensity curve is "based on" the corresponding pressure input (’260 Patent, Claim 1).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim's sequential "detect A, provide B, detect C, provide D..." structure implies a series of discrete cause-and-effect events. The specification also states that the "type of tactile sensation... may depend on the amount of pressure," suggesting the possibility of qualitatively different effects, not just intensity variations of the same effect (’260 Patent, col. 6:50-57).

For the ’507 Patent:

  • The Term: "determining a press if: the pressure is greater than a pressure threshold, the change in pressure is greater than a change in pressure threshold, and a first interval has elapsed"
  • Context and Importance: This term provides a specific, multi-part definition for the "press" gesture. Infringement requires that an accused device performs all three checks. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint’s evidence for the Steam Deck explicitly shows a "Simple Threshold" setting, which on its face may not perform the "change in pressure" or "elapsed interval" analysis.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patentee could argue that the term describes the overall functional goal of distinguishing an intentional press from other contacts, and that the accused "Simple Threshold" algorithm, in its implementation, inherently accounts for factors like change in pressure or time to achieve this goal, even if not explicitly named in the UI (’507 Patent, col. 2:6-14).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The language presents three distinct and mandatory conditions linked by "and." A defendant would likely argue that this is a clear limitation and that a "Simple Threshold" check that only evaluates pressure against a single value does not meet the plain language of the claim (’507 Patent, Claim 1).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For each asserted patent, the complaint alleges inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The allegations are based on Valve providing its users and developers with instructions, documentation (e.g., for SteamVR Input), developer kits, APIs, and software examples (e.g., "Moondust") that allegedly instruct and encourage the use of the claimed haptic technologies (Compl. ¶¶ 84, 124, 152, 210, 241, 282).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement. However, for each patent, it alleges that "By way of at least this Complaint, Valve knows of the... patent and performs acts that it knows, or should know, induce the direct infringement," thereby creating a basis for alleging post-suit knowledge and potential willfulness (Compl. ¶¶ 85, 125, 153, 211, 242, 283).

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

  • A core issue will be one of functional mapping: Do the accused products’ software implementations perform the specific, multi-part logical steps required by the claims? For instance, does the Steam Deck’s "Simple Threshold" trackpad activation perform the three-condition "press" analysis of the ’507 patent, or is there a functional mismatch between the accused implementation and the claim's explicit requirements?
  • A second key question will be one of definitional scope: Can claim terms describing discrete events, such as the sequence of three "tactile sensations" in the ’260 patent, be construed to cover a single, continuously modulated haptic response that varies with pressure? The interpretation of whether a continuous software function satisfies claim language written as a series of discrete steps will be central.
  • A third issue may be one of technological application: How will concepts developed for earlier technologies (e.g., touchpads on PDAs) be applied to the sophisticated, sensor-rich environment of modern VR controllers? For patents like the ’738 (proximity/touch) and ’067 (AR overlay), the case may explore whether the integrated nature of the Valve Index controllers falls within the scope of inventions that described these concepts with more distinct components.