Nintendo Co Ltd v. Resonant Systems Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00680
• Patent #: 8,860,337
• Filed: March 10, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Nintendo Co., Ltd., and Nintendo of America Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Resonant Systems, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 2 and 3

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Linear Vibration Modules and Linear-Resonant Vibration Modules
• Brief Description: The ’337 patent discloses vibration modules for incorporation into electromechanical devices. The technology is designed to produce vibrations of selected amplitudes and frequencies over a wide range by using the linear oscillation of an internal component to generate vibrational forces.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-4 are obvious over Wakuda in view of Ramsay

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Wakuda (Patent 7,005,811) and Ramsay (Application # 2008/0294984).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Wakuda taught a small-scale vibration generator system comprising all the core physical components of the claimed module, including a housing, a moveable body, a coil, and a control means. Wakuda’s control means generated a drive signal composed of a natural resonant frequency modulated by a lower "envelope" frequency to create varied vibration sensations. Ramsay taught a user interface for customizing haptic effects, allowing a user to specify parameters such as frequency and amplitude.
  • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Ramsay’s user-customization software with Wakuda’s haptic hardware. The motivation was to address the known limitation of haptic feedback being configurable only by professional designers. Adding Ramsay’s user-friendly interface would provide end-users with greater flexibility to create and modify haptic effects, resulting in a predictably improved user experience.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because both references describe techniques for controlling a linear actuator to produce a desired output. The proposed modification involved a straightforward implementation of Ramsay's software solutions into Wakuda's known hardware, requiring only routine software development skills.

Ground 2: Claims 1-4 are obvious over Wakuda and Ramsay in view of Rossi and Aldrich

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Wakuda (Patent 7,005,811), Ramsay (Application # 2008/0294984), Rossi (Patent 4,879,641), and Aldrich (NASA Tech Briefs (Apr. 2008)).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was asserted to address the means-plus-function constructions of the "control component" and "driving component." Petitioner argued that Rossi taught a well-known H-bridge switching circuit, a standard component for implementing bidirectional current flow to drive a coil. Aldrich taught a "hill-climbing" feedback control algorithm that drives an actuator at or near its resonance peak by incrementally adjusting the drive frequency based on sensor feedback to maximize output.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would incorporate Rossi's H-bridge circuit into the Wakuda-Ramsay system as a conventional, cost-effective, and reliable method to implement the bidirectional drive current that Wakuda described conceptually but did not detail. Subsequently, a POSITA would implement Aldrich's feedback algorithm to improve the system's ability to track and maintain operation at the resonant frequency, a key objective for which Wakuda provided limited implementation details.
  • Expectation of Success: Success was expected as Rossi's H-bridge is a standard circuit for this application, and Aldrich's algorithm is a known software-based control technique directly applicable to improving the performance of resonant systems like the one in Wakuda.

Ground 3A: Claims 1, 2, and 4 are obvious over Gregorio and Ramsay in view of Wakuda

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Gregorio (Patent 7,843,277), Ramsay (Application # 2008/0294984), and Wakuda (Patent 7,005,811).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented an alternative primary reference, Gregorio, which taught a haptic feedback system for a handheld device using a Linear Resonant Actuator (LRA). Gregorio’s system determines the LRA’s resonant frequency and adjusts the drive signal to maximize haptic feedback. As in Ground 1, Ramsay was combined to add user-customization features for frequency and amplitude. Wakuda was added to provide specific implementation details for the LRA.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, starting with Gregorio's system, would look to other references for concrete implementation details of the LRA, as Gregorio’s disclosure was high-level. Wakuda provided a detailed implementation of a similar linear vibration generator suitable for the same application (handheld devices). A POSITA would be motivated to use Wakuda's teachings to implement Gregorio’s LRA to achieve the stated goals of both references.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have an expectation of success due to the high degree of similarity in the system architectures and objectives of Gregorio and Wakuda, both of which describe LRAs for small electronic devices.
• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combining Gregorio, Ramsay, and Tierling (Ground 3B) to teach complex modulated waveforms, and further combinations including Rossi and Aldrich (Grounds 4A and 4B) to satisfy means-plus-function constructions.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued that the terms "driving component" and "control component" are central to the invalidity analysis and presented arguments under two alternative constructions to address the Patent Owner's inconsistent positions in co-pending litigation.
• The grounds were bifurcated: one set (e.g., Ground 1, 3A, 3B) addressed the terms under their plain-and-ordinary meaning, while the other set (e.g., Ground 2, 4A, 4B) addressed them as means-plus-function terms under 35 U.S.C. §112.
• For the means-plus-function construction of "control component," Petitioner identified the corresponding structure in the ’337 patent as including specific switches and a processor programmed with the algorithm detailed in Figures 7A-7C of the patent.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) based on the Fintiv factors would be inappropriate. The core reasons asserted were that the co-pending district court litigation is in its infancy, a stay is likely, and the PTAB's Final Written Decision (FWD) in the related Apple IPR (which Petitioner seeks to join) will substantially precede any potential trial date.
• Petitioner further stipulated that it would not advance in district court any invalidity grounds advanced in the Petition, thereby eliminating overlap between the proceedings.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 2 and 3 of Patent 8,860,337 as unpatentable.