Nintendo Co Ltd v. Malikie Innovations Ltd

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00006
• Patent #: 8,610,397
• Filed: October 8, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Nintendo Co., Ltd., and Nintendo of America Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Malikie Innovations Ltd.
• Challenged Claims: 1-22

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Battery Charger for Portable Devices and Related Methods
• Brief Description: The ’397 patent discloses battery charging systems for portable devices like laptops and cellular phones. The invention centers on a charger that communicates with a portable device to identify its specific device type and rechargeable battery type, and then selects appropriate charging parameters based on this identification.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-7 and 11-22 are obvious over Keirinbou in view of Gaza.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Keirinbou (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP 2000-323181A) and Gaza (Patent 5,998,966).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Keirinbou, which discloses a universal charger for various mobile phones, teaches most limitations of the independent claims. Keirinbou's charger sends a command to a connected device, which responds with its model number. The charger’s controller then uses this model number to look up the corresponding battery type and characteristics (e.g., lithium, NiCd) from an internal memory table and sets the appropriate charging parameters (voltage, current, time). Petitioner contended this system meets the limitations of a controller causing a device to identify its device type and battery type to determine a charging rate. To the extent the claims require the battery to provide its own type information separately, Petitioner asserted this would be obvious in view of Gaza. Gaza discloses "smart battery packs" containing an EEPROM that stores and directly communicates battery characteristics, including type and size, to the charger.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Gaza’s direct battery-information system with Keirinbou’s device-based lookup system to create a more robust and accurate universal charger. Using information directly from the battery as taught by Gaza would be more reliable and up-to-date than relying on a potentially outdated memory table in the charger, as in Keirinbou. This combination would better achieve Keirinbou’s stated goal of a charger compatible with various device models. Furthermore, Keirinbou’s system could serve as a fallback mechanism if the battery information from Gaza’s system was invalid or unavailable.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the combination relies on well-known battery charging and data communication technologies widely used in the late 1990s.

Ground 2: Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-13, 15-20, and 22 are obvious over Tanaka in view of Potega.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Tanaka (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP 2000-134816A) and Potega (Patent 6,459,175).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Tanaka discloses an AC adapter (charger) that solves the same problem as the ’397 patent: creating a single power supply for multiple devices. Tanaka's adapter enters a "device specification recognition mode" where the connected electronic device conveys its specifications (representing device/battery type) by varying the impedance on the power line. The adapter's controller analyzes these variations to recognize the device and sets the appropriate output voltage and current limits. Petitioner asserted this system teaches a controller configured to cause a device to identify its type and charge based on a corresponding rate. Potega was cited as further evidence that a POSITA would have understood the need for universal, intelligent power supplies capable of handling a wide variety of device and battery chemistries.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Tanaka and Potega because both references address the problem of needing dedicated AC adapters for different devices. Combining Potega’s teachings on intelligent power supplies that can separately identify device hardware and battery chemistry would improve the effectiveness of Tanaka's AC adapter. This would further Tanaka’s goal of safely and effectively providing power to multiple device types.
  • Expectation of Success: The implementation would have been straightforward, as the combination involves integrating known methods for device recognition and power regulation.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including:

  • Claims 8-10 are obvious over Keirinbou, Gaza, and Oler (Patent 6,437,543), where Oler was cited for its teaching of providing an error signal to a portable device’s display.
  • Claims 4, 8, 14, and 21 are obvious over Tanaka, Potega, and Koenck (Patent 5,493,199), where Koenck was cited for its teaching of identifying a battery’s charge level.
  • Claims 9-10 are obvious over Tanaka, Potega, and Stephens (Patent 5,602,455), where Stephens was cited for monitoring charging errors and providing an error indication via an LED.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) is not warranted. The petition asserted that this is the first inter partes review (IPR) filed against the ’397 patent, and its validity has not been previously adjudicated. Furthermore, the prior art references relied upon were not considered during the original prosecution. Petitioner also stated that the co-pending district court litigation is in a very early stage and that Petitioner intends to move to stay the litigation pending the outcome of the IPR.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-22 of Patent 8,610,397 as unpatentable.