`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
`ATLANTA DIVISION
`
`IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.,
`
` Plaintiff,
` v.
`
`COLLECTIVE MINDS GAMING CO.
`LTD., a Canadian Limited Company,
` Defendant.
`
` CIVIL ACTION FILE
` NO. 1:16-CV-4110-TWT
`
`OPINION AND ORDER
`
`This is a patent infringement action. It is before the Court for a Claims
`
`Construction Order regarding eight disputed claim terms in U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`8,641,525 (“the ‘525 Patent”), 9,089,770 (“the ‘770 patent”), 9,289,688 (“the ‘688
`
`Patent”), 9,352,229 (“the ‘229 Patent”), and 9,308,450 (“the ‘450 Patent”).
`
`I. Background
`
`The Plaintiff, Ironburg Inventions LTD., is a British company that
`
`manufactures and sells custom video game equipment and accessories through
`
`its American partner Scuf Gaming International, LLC, which is based in
`
`Georgia. It is seeking to enforce its rights under a series of patents for a video
`
`game controller. In particular, Ironburg’s patents describe controllers which
`
`have been modified from the standard gaming controller in two ways: through
`
`the addition of controls onto the back of the controller, and through the added
`
`T:\ORDERS\16\Ironburg Inventions Ltd\claimconstructiontwt.wpd
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 55 Filed 06/15/18 Page 2 of 21
`
`ability to adjust the throw of a trigger control. The Defendant, Collective Minds
`
`Gaming Co. Ltd., is a Canadian company that also manufactures and sells video
`
`game equipment, including video game controllers. Collective Minds now seeks
`
`construction of a number of terms in Ironburg’s patents.
`
`II. Legal Standard
`
`The construction of claims in a patent case is a matter of law for the
`
`Court.1 In construing patent claims, the Court looks first to the intrinsic
`
`evidence. The intrinsic evidence consists of the patent itself, the claim terms,
`
`the specification (or written description), and the patent prosecution history, if
`
`in evidence.2 However, not all intrinsic evidence is equal.3 First among intrinsic
`
`evidence is the claim language.4 A “bedrock principle” of patent law is that the
`
`claims of the patent define the patentee’s invention.5 Thus, the Court’s focus
`
`must “begin and remain centered on the language of the claims themselves, for
`
`it is that language that the patentee chose to use to particularly point out and
`
`distinctly claim the subject matter which the patentee regards as his
`
`1 Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996).
`2 Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1346 (Fed.
`Cir. 2004).
`
`3
`Cir. 1998).
`
`Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Identix, Inc., 149 F.3d 1335, 1344 (Fed.
`
`Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305
`4
`(Fed. Cir. 1999).
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
`
`5
`banc).
`
`T:\ORDERS\16\Ironburg Inventions Ltd\claimconstructiontwt.wpd
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 55 Filed 06/15/18 Page 3 of 21
`
`invention.”6 When reading claim language, terms are generally given their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning, which is the meaning that the term would
`
`have to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.7
`
`As a result, an objective baseline from which to begin claims construction
`
`is to determine how a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would
`
`understand the terms.8 Although “the claims of the patent, not its specifications,
`
`measure the invention,”9 the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read
`
`the claim terms in the context of the entire patent, including the specification,
`
`rather than solely in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed
`
`term appears.10 For instance, the patentee may act as his own lexicographer
`
`and set forth a special definition for a claim term.11
`
`Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 1370 (Fed.
`6
`Cir. 2005) (quoting Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d
`1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001)); see also Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“The written description part of the specifica-
`tion itself does not delimit the right to exclude. That is the function and purpose
`of claims.”).
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313-14.
`Id. at 1313.
`Smith v. Snow, 294 U.S. 1, 11 (1935).
`10 Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313.
`Id. at 1316.
`
`11
`
`T:\ORDERS\16\Ironburg Inventions Ltd\claimconstructiontwt.wpd
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 55 Filed 06/15/18 Page 4 of 21
`
`Claims are part of a “fully integrated written instrument” and, therefore,
`
`“must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.”12 In fact,
`
`the specification is “the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term” and
`
`is often dispositive.13 “It is therefore entirely appropriate for a court, when
`
`conducting claim construction, to rely heavily on the written description for
`
`guidance as to the meaning of the claims.”14 Nevertheless, the Court must be
`
`careful not to read a limitation into a claim from the specification.15 In
`
`particular, the Court cannot limit the invention to the specific examples or
`
`preferred embodiments found in the specification.16 In addition to the specifica-
`
`tion, the prosecution history may be used to determine if the patentee limited
`
`the scope of the claims during the patent prosecution.17 The prosecution history
`
`helps to demonstrate how the patentee and the Patent and Trademark Office
`
`12
`
`14
`
`Id. at 1315.
`Id. (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576,
`13
`1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).
`Id. at 1317.
`15 Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 904 (Fed. Cir.
`2004).
`16 Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323; see also Resonate Inc. v. Alteon
`Websystems, Inc., 338 F.3d 1360, 1364-65 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[A] particular
`embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim
`when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.”).
`17 Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1576 (Fed.
`Cir. 1995).
`
`T:\ORDERS\16\Ironburg Inventions Ltd\claimconstructiontwt.wpd
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 55 Filed 06/15/18 Page 5 of 21
`
`(“PTO”) understood the patent.18 However, because the prosecution history
`
`represents the ongoing negotiations between the PTO and the patentee, rather
`
`than a final product, it is not as useful as the specification for claim construction
`
`purposes.19
`
`Extrinsic evidence – such as expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries,
`
`and learned treatises – is only considered when the claim language remains
`
`genuinely ambiguous after considering all of the patent’s intrinsic evidence.20
`
`Although less reliable than the patent and prosecution history in determining
`
`construction of claim terms, extrinsic evidence may be used to help the Court
`
`understand the technology or educate itself about the invention.21 In particular,
`
`because technical dictionaries collect accepted meanings for terms in various
`
`scientific and technical fields, they can be useful in claim construction by
`
`providing a better understanding of the underlying technology and the way in
`
`which one skilled in the art might use the claim terms.22 But extrinsic evidence,
`
`19
`
`18 Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317.
`Id.
`20 Tegal Corp. v. Tokyo Electron America, Inc., 257 F.3d 1331, 1342
`(Fed. Cir. 2001).
`21 Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317; Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1584.
`22 Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318.
`
`T:\ORDERS\16\Ironburg Inventions Ltd\claimconstructiontwt.wpd
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 55 Filed 06/15/18 Page 6 of 21
`
`including dictionary definitions, cannot be used to vary or contradict the terms
`
`of the patent claims.23
`
`III. Discussion
`
`A.
`
`Locations on the Controller
`
`1.
`
`“top edge” and “front” - ‘525 Patent, Claims 5 and 17
`
`The parties first dispute the meaning of the terms “top edge” and “front”
`
`in dependent Claim 5 of the ‘525 Patent, and “front” as used in dependent Claim
`
`17 of the ‘525 Patent. Ironburg contends that no construction is necessary
`
`because “top edge” and “front” are terms with ordinary meanings that are easily
`
`understood in the context of the patent. Collective Minds contends that “top
`
`edge” should be construed as the “uppermost edge of the controller (i.e., the edge
`
`furthest from the user when the controller is held horizontally),” and that “front”
`
`should be construed to mean the “front face of the controller (if a curved surface,
`
`the measurement uses the tangent of the center point of the front face).”
`
`Here, there is no reason to depart from the plain and ordinary meaning
`
`of “top edge” and “front.” Both of these terms are clearly recited in the ‘525
`
`Patent as referring to particular faces of the controller. While it perhaps may
`
`have been easier to label each face with generic terms that do not carry with
`
`them directional baggage (e.g., A, B, C, etc.), that does not mean that a person
`
`23 Tegal Corp., 257 F.3d at 1342; see also Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at
`1584 n.6 (courts are free to consult dictionaries “so long as the dictionary
`definition does not contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a reading
`of the patent documents”); Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1322-23.
`
`T:\ORDERS\16\Ironburg Inventions Ltd\claimconstructiontwt.wpd
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 55 Filed 06/15/18 Page 7 of 21
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to understand what “top edge” and
`
`“front” mean in the context of the entire patent. Rather, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would easily understand what was meant by “top edge” and
`
`“front” simply by looking to the rest of the patent. Claim 1 describes the
`
`controller as comprising four faces: “a front, a back, a top edge, and a bottom
`
`edge, wherein the back of the controller is opposite the front of the controller
`
`and the top edge is opposite the bottom edge.”24 Further, Claim 1 goes on to
`
`describe that the front of the controller has a control, and that the controller is
`
`shaped “such that the user’s thumb is positioned to operate the front control.”25
`
`This language alone provides enough context such that a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would be able to orient himself determine which face is which.
`
`Collective Minds’ proposed constructions, meanwhile, would unnecessar-
`
`ily limit both of these terms. For instance, while the “top edge” may be the
`
`“uppermost” edge, or may include the “uppermost” edge, it may also encompass
`
`more than just the “uppermost” part, such as when a controller has a curved
`
`“top edge.” In such a situation, the clear intent of the patent is to refer to the
`
`entire curved face as the “top edge,” but Collective Minds’ definition would only
`
`consider the “uppermost” portion of this curved edge to be the “top edge.”
`
`24
`
`25
`
`‘525 Patent, at 7 [Doc. 1-1].
`Id.
`
`T:\ORDERS\16\Ironburg Inventions Ltd\claimconstructiontwt.wpd
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 55 Filed 06/15/18 Page 8 of 21
`
`Further, in the event the front face is a curved surface, Collective Minds
`
`wants to go so far as to specifically define the front face as the tangent of its
`
`center point. But Collective Minds comes up with this definition out of whole
`
`cloth. While it is true that one could not mathematically determine whether the
`
`top edge was exactly perpendicular to a curved front without choosing a tangent,
`
`nothing in the patent language requires exact mathematical perpendicularity.
`
`Instead, it merely requires that the top edge be “substantially perpendicular” to
`
`the front. And even if exact perpendicularity was required, nothing in the patent
`
`suggests that the tangent must necessarily be the center point of the front face.
`
`Rather than using Collective Minds’ wholly novel construction of “front,” the
`
`Court finds that its plain and ordinary meaning is both sufficient and more
`
`appropriate here.
`
`2.
`
`“located at/on the back of the controller” - ‘525 and ‘770
`Patents
`
`The parties next dispute the meaning of the terms referencing the
`
`location of the back controls. Claims 1 and 20 of the ‘525 Patent refer to the back
`
`controls as being “located on the back of the controller,” while Claim 1 of the ‘770
`
`Patent refers to the back controls as being “located at the back of the controller.”
`
`Ironburg argues the plain meaning is sufficient here as well, while Collective
`
`Minds would like these terms to be construed to say that the rear controls are
`
`those which are “positioned to be engaged by the user at the back of the
`
`controller.”
`
`T:\ORDERS\16\Ironburg Inventions Ltd\claimconstructiontwt.wpd
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 55 Filed 06/15/18 Page 9 of 21
`
`Once again, however, Collective Minds’ construction is an unjustified
`
`rewriting of the claim language. Collective Minds claims that its construction
`
`is more true to the descriptions of the specification. While it may be true that
`
`the specification often uses language that describes its position as something
`
`able to be controlled by the user, the fact remains that the patentee chose to
`
`claim the positional relationship between the controls and the back of the
`
`controller, and not the relationship between the controls and the user. The plain
`
`language contained in the claim language is not confusing or ambiguous, and
`
`there is no reason to completely redefine the claim language.
`
`3.
`
`“Medial portion” -‘770 Patent, Claims 4 and 5
`
`The parties next dispute the meaning of the term “medial portion” as used
`
`in Claims 4 and 5 of the ‘770 Patent. Those claims read in relevant part as
`
`follows:
`
`Claim 4: A controller “wherein the first distance is between the top
`edge and the medial portion and the second distance is between
`the top edge and the medial portion.”
`
`Claim 5: A controller “wherein the medial portion is closer to the
`top edge than a distal end of each of the first handle and the
`second handle.”
`
`Collective Minds would define “medial portion” in Claim 4 as “the lowest edge
`
`of the controller (i.e., the edge closest to the user when the controller is held
`
`horizontally) between the handles.” Ironburg, meanwhile, argues the ordinary
`
`language of the patent is sufficient. The Court agrees with Ironburg as to Claim
`
`T:\ORDERS\16\Ironburg Inventions Ltd\claimconstructiontwt.wpd
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 55 Filed 06/15/18 Page 10 of 21
`
`4. The patent itself defines what the medial portion is in Claim 5, and Collective
`
`Minds’ definition does not clarify the term any further.
`
`As for Claim 5, Collective Minds would have the Court construe the
`
`phrase to read “the medial portion is closer to the top edge than the medial
`
`portion is to a distal end of each of the first handle and the second handle.”
`
`Ironburg once again argues that the plain language is sufficient. Ultimately, the
`
`dispute centers around some ambiguity in the claim language which could lead
`
`to one of two interpretations. Either (1) the medial portion is closer to the top
`
`edge than the distal ends are to the top edge, or (2) the medial portion is closer
`
`to the top edge than the medial portion is to the distal ends.
`
`Collective Minds argues that the second interpretation is the correct one,
`
`and that the Court should construe the claim so as to make that clear. In
`
`particular, Collective Minds points to Claim 3, on which Claim 5 depends. Claim
`
`3 defines the bottom edge of the controller as including “a first convex portion
`
`that defines the first handle; a second convex portion that defines the second
`
`handle; and a medial portion between the first convex portion and the second
`
`convex portion.” In order for there to be two convex handles, Collective Minds
`
`argues that the medial portion must necessarily be closer to the top edge than
`
`the ends of the handles are to the top edge; otherwise, the handles would be
`
`concave. Thus, according to Collective Minds, Claim 3's requirement for two
`
`convex handles means that the first interpretation would render the claim
`
`language redundant.
`
`T:\ORDERS\16\Ironburg Inventions Ltd\claimconstructiontwt.wpd
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 55 Filed 06/15/18 Page 11 of 21
`
`Further, Collective Minds points to the ‘770 Patent’s Figure 2 as
`
`supporting the second interpretation. According to Collective Minds, Figure 2
`
`illustrates a controller in which the distance between the top edge and medial
`
`portion is shorter than the distance between the medial portion and the handle
`
`ends. Collective Minds then annotated Figure 2 to show this relationship:
`
`Ann. ‘770 Patent Fig. 2 from Def.’s Opening Claim
`Construction Brief, at 15 [Doc. 38].
`
`Because Figure 2 shows a controller in which the medial portion is closer to the
`
`top edge than it is to the distal ends of the handles, Collective Minds argues that
`
`this must be the correct interpretation of Claim 5.
`
`The Court finds that Collective Minds’ proposed construction is best
`
`suited to the entire language of the patent, and is what a person of reasonable
`
`skill in the art would have understood the medial portion to be. As the Federal
`
`Circuit has stated, “interpretations that render some portion of the claim
`
`T:\ORDERS\16\Ironburg Inventions Ltd\claimconstructiontwt.wpd
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 55 Filed 06/15/18 Page 12 of 21
`
`language superfluous are disfavored.”26 Ironburg’s proposed construction would
`
`merely be a rephrasing of Claim 3's statement that the controller includes
`
`convex handles.
`
`In addition, Ironburg’s proposed construction would make differentiating
`
`between the medial portion and the handles themselves very difficult. According
`
`to that construction, any point on the bottom edge that is closer to the top edge
`
`than the distal end of the handles is part of the medial portion. But as Figure
`
`2 shows, when the handles are curved, every measurable point on the curve is
`
`closer to the top edge than the distal end is; that is what makes the end of the
`
`handle distal. Under Ironburg’s proposed construction, the only part of the
`
`controller that would be part of the handle would be the distal end itself.
`
`Collective Minds’ proposed construction, meanwhile, provides a clear
`
`differentiation between the handles and the medial portion. As soon as a portion
`
`of the bottom edge is closer to the top edge than it is to the distal end of the
`
`handles, that is where the medial portion begins and a handle ends. It also
`
`encompasses the preferred embodiments, as noted above in Figure 2.
`
`Ironburg responds by arguing that Collective Minds’ method of measuring
`
`the distances between the medial portion and the distal ends is incorrect, and
`
`26 Power Mosfet Techs., L.L.C. v. Siemens AG, 378 F.3d 1396, 1410
`(Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`T:\ORDERS\16\Ironburg Inventions Ltd\claimconstructiontwt.wpd
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 55 Filed 06/15/18 Page 13 of 21
`
`that it should have done so along a vertical axis, rather than a diagonal one, as
`
`shown below.27
`
`But this argument suffers from a lack of support in the patent language.
`
`Nowhere in the patent is there any indication of what method of measuring
`
`distance should be used. The most logical approach, then, would be to measure
`
`the shortest distance between the two points on a straight line, which is exactly
`
`what Collective Minds did in its annotations to Figure 2. Thus, the Court
`
`construes Claim 5 to read as “wherein the medial portion is closer to the top
`
`edge than the medial portion is to a distal end of each of the first handle and the
`
`second handle.”
`
`4.
`
`“Front end of the controller” - ‘525 Patent, Claim 13
`
`
`
`The parties next dispute the meaning of “front end of the controller” as
`
`used in Claim 13 of the ‘525 Patent. Claim 1 of the ‘525 Patent describes a
`
`27
`[Doc. 42].
`
`Ann. Figure 1 from Pl.’s Opposition Claim Construction Br., at 16
`
`T:\ORDERS\16\Ironburg Inventions Ltd\claimconstructiontwt.wpd
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 55 Filed 06/15/18 Page 14 of 21
`
`controller having a “front,” a “back,” a “top edge,” and a “bottom edge.” The front
`
`of the controller contains the buttons and controls engaged by the user’s thumbs,
`
`the top edge of the controller contains the triggers and buttons usually engaged
`
`by the user’s index or middle fingers, and the back contains the controls engaged
`
`by the user’s middle or ring fingers. Claim 13 describes the back controls as
`
`“converg[ing] towards the front end of the controller with respect to one
`
`another.”28
`
`Collective Minds argues that because Claim 13 is dependent on Claim 1,
`
`which defines the “front” of the controller, the Court should construe “front end”
`
`to mean “front of the controller (as defined by Claim 1).” However, this
`
`construction would unnecessarily limit Claim 13. While “front” has clearly been
`
`defined by Claim 1, the “front” of the controller is not necessarily the same as
`
`the “front end.” Indeed, the parties agree that “front” as used here is the same
`
`as it is used in Claim 1. The dispute is fundamentally about the meaning of
`
`“end.” Under Collective Minds’ proposed construction, “end” would merely be
`
`superfluous, and would make little sense in the context of the entire patent.
`
`That being said, leaving “end” as is would also be confusing, as the end of the
`
`Ironburg originally requested construction of “converge,” but
`28
`eventually agreed with Collective Minds that the plain and ordinary meaning
`should control. The parties now only dispute what “front end” of the controller
`means. Compare Pl.’s Opening Claim Construction Br., at 11 with Pl.’s
`Opposition Claim Construction Br., at 25.
`
`T:\ORDERS\16\Ironburg Inventions Ltd\claimconstructiontwt.wpd
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 55 Filed 06/15/18 Page 15 of 21
`
`front face could mean any of the four general sides of the controller, not just the
`
`top or bottom.
`
`Despite the inadequacy of both parties’ proposed constructions, however,
`
`the specification provides some guidance. It describes the paddles as
`
`“converg[ing] towards the top edge with respect to each other” in at least one of
`
`the embodiments.29 Thus, it seems clear that the inventor intended Claim 13 to
`
`describe paddles that converged toward the top edge. Of course, as Collective
`
`Minds points out, it is black letter patent law that “[c]ourts cannot rewrite claim
`
`language.”30 Because Claim 13 is dependent on Claim 1, “front” must mean the
`
`front face of the controller as defined in Claim 1; it cannot mean “top edge,”
`
`which is a different face of the controller altogether. The “end” must be some
`
`particular place on the front face. Given the language in the specification
`
`indicating a convergence towards the “top edge,” the construction that makes
`
`the most sense is to read “front end” as the “corner or edge of the front face
`
`closest to the top edge.”
`
`29
`
`‘525 Patent at 3:54-56.
`30 Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379,
`1383 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`T:\ORDERS\16\Ironburg Inventions Ltd\claimconstructiontwt.wpd
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 55 Filed 06/15/18 Page 16 of 21
`
`B.
`
`“Surface disposed proximate an outer surface” - ‘688 Patent,
`Claims 1 and 30
`
`The parties next dispute the use of the phrase “surface disposed
`
`proximate an outer surface” as it is used in Claims 1 and 30 of the ‘688 Patent.
`
`The relevant portions of those claims read as follows:
`
`Claim 1: “A games controller comprising. . . [a] first additional
`control comprising a first elongate member displaceable by the
`user to activate a control function, wherein the first elongate
`member comprises a first surface disposed proximate an outer
`surface of the case . . .”
`
`Claim 30: A controller actuator comprising “an elongate member
`. . . compris[ing] a first surface for being disposed proximate an
`outer surface of the base of the games controller . . .”
`
`Ironburg argues that the plain and ordinary meaning of this language should
`
`control. Collective Minds argues that the language is confusing and should be
`
`construed to read as follows:
`
`Claim 1: “A games controller comprising. . . [a] first additional
`control comprising a first elongate member displaceable by the
`user to activate a control function, wherein the first elongate
`member comprises a first surface disposed proximate an outer
`surface of the case along the length of the first surface . . .”
`
`Claim 30: A controller actuator comprising “an elongate member
`. . . compris[ing] a first surface for being disposed proximate an
`outer surface of the base of the games controller along the length
`of the first surface. . .”
`
`Essentially, Collective Minds is concerned that the existing claim language
`
`allows for ambiguity such that an elongate member which is proximate to the
`
`outer surface of the game controller at only one discreet point could be
`
`considered protected when that was not the patentee’s intention.
`
`T:\ORDERS\16\Ironburg Inventions Ltd\claimconstructiontwt.wpd
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 55 Filed 06/15/18 Page 17 of 21
`
`Collective Minds’ point is well taken. The claim language describes the
`
`first surface of the elongate member being proximate the outer surface of the
`
`controller case. It is clear that the patent contemplates the entirety of the first
`
`surface being proximate to the case, not simply a portion of it. Every one of the
`
`drawings contained in the patent shows back paddles that run along the length
`
`of the controller, rather than stick out from it. Indeed, this is part of the function
`
`of the controls; if they stuck out from the controller, they would be much more
`
`difficult to use comfortably.
`
`For this reason, the Court finds that Collective Minds’ proposed
`
`construction does not add a limitation to the claim language. Rather, it is
`
`helpful in clarifying what is already the manifest intention contained in the
`
`patent, namely, that the elongate members run along the back of the case. This
`
`construction does not mean that the elongate members must be exactly parallel,
`
`nor that their relationship to the outer surface of the controller necessarily
`
`needs to be consistent. That relationship between the first surface and the back
`
`of the controller can change (e.g., by curving), as long as the first surface is
`
`“proximate” the outer surface along its length. What the line is between
`
`proximate and not-proximate is a question for the jury. Thus, the Court
`
`construes Claims 1 and 30 of the ‘688 patent as describing a “first surface
`
`proximate an outer surface of the [case or base of the games controller] along the
`
`length of the first surface.”
`
`T:\ORDERS\16\Ironburg Inventions Ltd\claimconstructiontwt.wpd
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 55 Filed 06/15/18 Page 18 of 21
`
`C.
`
`“Engaging surface” - ‘688 Patent, Claim 24
`
`The next language the parties dispute comes from Claim 24 of the ‘688
`
`Patent, which reads in relevant part: a controller “wherein a switch mechanism
`
`is mounted to a rear panel of the case wherein the switch mechanism comprises
`
`an engaging surface, the engaging surface being disposed in an aperture in an
`
`outer surface of the rear panel and arranged flush with the outer surface of the
`
`rear panel.” Ironburg argues that the plain and ordinary meaning of the term
`
`“engaging surface” should control, while Collective Minds argues it should be
`
`construed to read as a “surface contacted to engage switch.” Collective Minds
`
`expressly says that the reason it wants this construction is to make clear that
`
`it is not infringing.31 That is not a sufficient reason to re-construe a claim. The
`
`Court does not believe “surface contacted to engage switch” adds any more
`
`clarity than “engaging surface.” The plain and ordinary meaning here should
`
`control.
`
`D.
`
`“Command initiation point” - ‘450 Patent, Claim 1
`
`The parties next dispute the construction of “command initiation point”
`
`as used in Claim 1 of the ‘450 patent. The ‘450 patent covers a game controller
`
`that has a “trigger” control located on the top of it. It also describes a particular
`
`feature of the claimed controller that allows the user to tighten or loosen a
`
`screw, thereby adjusting the throw of the controller. This means a user can
`
`31
`
`Def.’s Opening Claim Construction Br., at 19.
`
`T:\ORDERS\16\Ironburg Inventions Ltd\claimconstructiontwt.wpd
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 55 Filed 06/15/18 Page 19 of 21
`
`adjust how much the trigger must be pushed in order to initiate a command in
`
`the game, giving the user the ability to change the sensitivity of the trigger
`
`depending on what best fits the game being played. For example, in a car racing
`
`game in which the trigger controls the throttle, a user may want a longer throw
`
`to be able to ease on or off the gas. By contrast, in a first person shooter game
`
`in which the trigger controls the gun’s trigger in the game, a user may desire to
`
`have a short throw to be able to quickly take a shot. Put another way, a longer
`
`throw may be more desirable for game commands that occur on a spectrum (e.g.,
`
`a throttle), whereas a shorter throw may be desirable for binary commands (e.g.,
`
`shoot or don’t shoot).
`
`The controller claimed by the ‘450 patent allows the user to adjust that
`
`function to his desired “command initiation point.” Claim 1 specifically describes
`
`the game controller as comprising “a screw . . . [that is] configured to contact the
`
`strike plate to adjustably define a command initiation point; and wherein the
`
`command initiation point defines one end of a range of motion of the actuator
`
`body.” The parties dispute the meaning of the command initiation point.
`
`Collective Minds would have the Court construe the command initiation point
`
`to read as a “point in the throw of the actuator body at which a command is
`
`initiated.” In other words, the point at which the game being played recognized
`
`a command. Ironburg argues that the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim
`
`language is sufficient.
`
`T:\ORDERS\16\Ironburg Inventions Ltd\claimconstructiontwt.wpd
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 55 Filed 06/15/18 Page 20 of 21
`
`The Court agrees with Ironburg. Collective Minds’ interpretation of the
`
`patent language ignores the actual language itself. Claim 1 defines the
`
`command initiation point as “one end of a range of motion” determined by the
`
`position of the adjustable screw, and Claim 2 further defines it as “a start
`
`position.” Under this language, therefore, the command initiation point is not
`
`the point at which the game registers a command, which could be at different
`
`points along the throw depending on the game being played. Rather, it is the
`
`point at which the user begins to engage the trigger control. Collective Minds’
`
`proposed construction finds no support in the language of the patent itself, and
`
`the Court finds that the plain and ordinary meaning of the language is sufficient
`
`and should control.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`For the reasons set forth above, the Court construes the disputed terms
`
`as follows:
`
`Term
`1. Top edge - ‘525 Patent
`2. Front - ‘525 Patent
`3. Located at/on the back of the con-
`troller - ‘525 and ‘770 Patents
`4. Medial portion - ‘770 Patent
`
`Construction
`Plain and ordinary
`Plain and ordinary
`Plain and ordinary
`
`Claim 4: plain and ordinary;
`
`Claim 5: “wherein the medial por-
`tion is closer to the top edge than
`the medial portion is to a distal end
`of each of the first handle and the
`second handle.”
`
`T:\ORDERS\16\Ironburg Inventions Ltd\claimconstructiontwt.wpd
`
`-20-
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-04110-TWT Document 55 Filed 06/15/18 Page 21 of 21
`
`5. Front end - ‘525 Patent
`
`6. Surface disposed proximate an
`outer surface - ‘688 Patent
`
`7. Engaging surface - ‘688 Patent
`8. Command initiation point - ‘450
`Patent
`
`“corner or edge of the front face clos-
`est to the top edge.”
`Claim 1: “first surface proximate an
`outer surface of the case along the
`length of the first surface”
`
`Claim 30: first surface proximate an
`outer surface of the base of the
`games controller along the length of
`the first surface
`Plain and ordinary
`Plain and ordinary
`
`SO ORDERED, this 14 day of June, 2018.
`
`/s/Thomas W. Thrash
`THOMAS W. THRASH, JR.
`United States District Judge
`
`T:\ORDERS\16\Ironburg Inventions Ltd\claimconstructiontwt.wpd
`
`-21-
`
`