Gamevice, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:18-cv-01942
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 20
In Gamevice v. Nintendo, Judge Seeborg construed ten patent terms and reserved Nintendo’s summary-judgment motion for supplemental briefing.
Gamevice, Nintendo Co., Ltd., and Nintendo of America, Inc.; the adopted constructions will guide the remaining patent-infringement litigation, while Nintendo’s summary-judgment motion remains undecided.
What happened
Gamevice, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. concerns Gamevice’s claim that Nintendo’s Switch console infringes three Gamevice patents. The court resolved how several disputed patent terms should be understood.
Judge Seeborg construed terms including “computing device,” “fastening mechanisms,” “confinement structures,” “passageway,” “communication link,” and “structural bridge.” He also ruled that “retention mechanism” is governed by a special patent-law rule and that the corresponding structure is indefinite. The court left “promotes” in its ordinary meaning.
Judge Seeborg did not decide Nintendo’s summary-judgment motion. He reserved judgment and ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs explaining how the adopted meanings affect Nintendo’s arguments about noninfringement and patent invalidity.
The detailed version
- Gamevice, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. · No. 3:18-cv-01942
- Richard Seeborg
- Jan. 19, 2023
Background
Gamevice sued Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America, Inc., alleging infringement of three patents concerning a game controller with a structural bridge. Gamevice alleged that Nintendo infringed the patents by importing and selling the Nintendo Switch, a handheld gaming console with detachable controllers. The parties asked the court to determine the meaning of ten disputed patent terms. Nintendo also moved for summary judgment, arguing that particular claim constructions would require judgment of noninfringement or invalidity.
Claim constructions
The court adopted these constructions:
- “Computing device”: “electronic equipment controlled by a CPU.” The court rejected Gamevice’s additional language stating that the term is not limited to a complete, finished device. - “Retention mechanism”: governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), which applies when a patent term is treated as describing a function rather than sufficiently definite structure. The relevant function is “interacting with the spring member of the restraint to couple the structural bridge to at least one of the first and second game control modules.” The court found no corresponding structure in the patents that fully performs that function and concluded that claim 12 of the ’393 patent is indefinite. - “Fastening mechanisms”: plain and ordinary meaning, namely “a fastener or fasteners.” The court found that Nintendo had not overcome the presumption against treating this term as a function-based patent limitation. - “A pair of confinement structures” and “confinement structures”: “physical component(s) that hold(s) a computing device.” The court declined to apply § 112(f). - “Passageway”: “a space that accommodates a communication wire.” - “Communication link”: “a component for reception and transmission of data.” - “Structural bridge”: “a physical apparatus that secures two or more components to each other across a distance.” - “Promotes”: plain and ordinary meaning; no further construction was necessary. - “Electrical communication”: “the flow of information between two components represented by the use of electricity.” - “Electronic communication”: “the flow of information between two components represented by the use of electricity controlled by and/or mediated through an electron device, such as a vacuum, gas, transistor, or semiconductor.”
Summary judgment
Nintendo’s summary-judgment arguments depended on claim constructions that the court did not adopt. The court nevertheless determined that portions of the parties’ arguments could apply under the adopted constructions. It therefore reserved judgment on the motion and requested supplemental briefing. Nintendo’s brief was due within 21 days after entry of the order, and Gamevice’s brief was due within 14 days after Nintendo’s filing. The order did not grant or deny the summary-judgment motion.
Disposition
The court adopted the stated claim constructions, found claim 12 of the ’393 patent indefinite based on the “retention mechanism” limitation, and reserved judgment on Nintendo’s pending motion for summary judgment. Judge Richard Seeborg signed the order.
Read the full 20-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.