Tomita Technologies USA, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.
681 F. App'x 967
Fed. Cir.2017Background
- Tomita sued Nintendo, alleging the Nintendo 3DS infringed claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,417,664 (the ’664 patent) relating to stereoscopic image pick-up and display.
- Claim 1 includes a means-plus-function limitation "offset presetting means," whose corresponding structure in the specification was construed to include timing control unit 32, signal switch 40, switch control unit 41, and synthesis frame memory 50 (and equivalents).
- A jury initially found infringement, but this court reversed and remanded in Tomita I because the district court had mis-construed "offset presetting means." On remand the district court held a bench trial and found noninfringement (both literal and under the doctrine of equivalents).
- The district court’s noninfringement ruling focused on structural non-equivalence between the ’664 patent’s offsetting structure and the 3DS’s implementation (noting differences in horizontal-only offsets vs. 3DS’s multiple transformations, hardware vs. software implementation, and output/storage differences).
- The Federal Circuit reviewed the bench-trial factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo, and affirmed the district court, concluding Tomita failed to show structural equivalence for the offsetting portion of the means-plus-function limitation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 3DS literally or under the doctrine of equivalents infringes the means-plus-function limitation "offset presetting means" | Tomita: 3DS performs same function and its structures are equivalent to the claimed corresponding structures | Nintendo: 3DS uses different structures/approaches (software-based, multi-axis transforms, rendering differences) not equivalent to the patent’s specified hardware-based structure | Affirmed noninfringement: Court found no structural equivalence for the offsetting portion, so infringement fails |
| Appropriateness of applying function-way-result and insubstantial-differences tests | Tomita: district court misapplied or over-relied on these tests; alleged improper focus on accused device and software-vs-hardware distinctions | Nintendo: tests properly applied to compare way and result and to identify substantial differences | Tests properly applied; differences in "way" and "result" supported noninfringement |
| Whether software implementation can be equivalent to hardware implementation | Tomita: software implementation of offsetting should be equivalent (citing Overhead Door) | Nintendo: practical differences (flexibility, multiple transforms, calibration) make 3DS substantially different | Court: Overhead Door does not require treating software=hardware as invariably equivalent; district court permissibly found non-equivalence |
| Whether the court needed to reach "displaying" portion after resolving "offsetting" non-equivalence | Tomita: argued multiple operational modes and SD card mode could show infringement | Nintendo: failure to prove equivalence for offsetting is dispositive | Court did not decide displaying portion; infringement requires every claim element so failure on offsetting is dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Tomita Techs. USA, LLC v. Nintendo Co., [citation="594 F. App'x 657"] (Fed. Cir.) (prior panel decision reversing jury verdict for incorrect claim construction)
- Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17 (1997) (doctrine of equivalents framework and role in means-plus-function analysis)
- Gen. Protecht Grp., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 619 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.) (means-plus-function literal infringement requires identical/equivalent structure)
- Voda v. Cordis Corp., 536 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir.) (function-way-result test for equivalence)
- Overhead Door Corp. v. Chamberlain Group, Inc., 194 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir.) (discussion about software/hardware implementations and equivalence)
- Valmont Indus., Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039 (Fed. Cir.) (insubstantial differences test)
- Gemstar-TV Guide Int'l, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 383 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir.) (accused product relying on different technology can show noninfringement)