Gamevice, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.

Background

Nintendo previously moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Nintendo Switch predated Gamevice’s three asserted patents—the ’713, ’498, and ’393 patents—and therefore anticipated, or made invalid, Gamevice’s asserted claims. Gamevice responded that the earlier ’119 patent supported the claims’ subject matter and gave them a February 2015 priority filing date, which preceded the Nintendo Switch.

The court’s March 14, 2023 order granted in part and denied in part Nintendo’s motion. It concluded that the ’119 patent did not describe a “computing device” as that term was used in the asserted patents. The court therefore held that claims using that term were not entitled to the ’119 patent’s priority date and were invalid as anticipated by the Nintendo Switch.

Motion for Reconsideration

Gamevice sought reconsideration under Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(3), arguing that the earlier order failed to analyze the validity of the asserted claims individually. Gamevice contended that some dependent claims added screen-and-back limitations that were fully supported by the ’119 patent, even if broader independent claims were not.

The court agreed that the earlier analysis was legally inadequate. Under federal patent law, each patent claim is presumed valid independently, and invalidity of an independent claim does not automatically determine the validity of claims that depend on it. The court also explained that entitlement to an earlier priority date must be assessed claim by claim based on the disclosure in the earlier patent.

Five Screen-and-Back Claims

Gamevice specifically sought reconsideration for claims 3, 4, 6, and 7 of the ’713 patent and claim 6 of the ’393 patent. The court described these as “screen-and-back claims.” Although the broader independent claims referred to a computing device with fewer limitations, the specified dependent claims added a back and, where applicable, an electronic display screen.

The court found that the ’119 patent provided written-description support for these claims. “Written description support” means that an earlier patent application adequately describes the invention later claimed. The ’119 patent described a computing device with sides, an electronic display screen, and a back. Its specification also contained descriptions and functional diagrams materially indistinguishable from those in the asserted patents.

The court rejected Nintendo’s argument that the ’119 patent described only a structurally complete or functional computing device, rather than a collection of parts. It concluded that the screen-and-back claims aligned with the invention disclosed in the ’119 patent. Because claims 3, 4, 6, and 7 of the ’713 patent and claim 6 of the ’393 patent were entitled to the ’119 patent’s priority filing date, they were not anticipated by the Nintendo Switch.

Disposition

The court granted the motion for reconsideration. It held that the five specified claims were entitled to the ’119 patent’s priority filing date, were not invalid as anticipated, and that summary judgment was denied with respect to those five claims. The prior order was amended. The court also stated that the broader independent claims remained invalid as anticipated because they were not supported by the ’119 patent’s priority filing date.