Tomita Technologies USA, LLC v. Nintendo Co.
182 F. Supp. 3d 107
S.D.N.Y.2016Background
- Tomita sued Nintendo, alleging the Nintendo 3DS camera and AR applications infringe Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,417,664 (the ’664 patent), which claims an "offset presetting means" for creating optimal stereoscopic (3D) images.
- The Federal Circuit reversed this Court’s earlier claim construction and held the corresponding structure is the Figure 3 combination: timing control unit 32, signal switch 40, switch control unit 41, and synthesis frame memory 50 (and equivalents).
- The ’664 patent’s structure uses a hardware timing-based method that interleaves left/right pixel lines in frame memory and effects horizontal offset by advancing/delaying right-eye data timing.
- The 3DS captures left/right images, calculates affine transformation matrices in software (CPU/OpenGL) and uses the GPU to render offset left/right images into display buffers; an LCD controller then interleaves chunks of buffer data for display without composing a full interleaved image in memory.
- The parties agree the claimed function is performed by the 3DS; the dispute is whether the 3DS structure is structurally equivalent (means-plus-function) or equivalent under the doctrine of equivalents to the Figure 3 structure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 3DS structure is equivalent to the patent’s "offset presetting means" (means-plus-function structural equivalence) | Tomita: 3DS performs same function; software matrix transforms are equivalent to timing-based offset; known interchangeability supports equivalence | Nintendo: 3DS uses materially different software/GPU matrix rendering and composes image at display time, not by hardware timing into frame memory | Court: Not equivalent — Tomita failed both function-way-result and insubstantial-differences tests; no infringement |
| Whether the doctrine of equivalents saves Tomita’s claim | Tomita: even if not literal, differences are insubstantial; both systems effect horizontal translations | Nintendo: differences (software vs hardware, multiple affine transforms, rendering before interleaving, composing at display time) are substantial and add functionality | Court: Doctrine of equivalents fails for same reasons as means-plus-function; no infringement |
| Whether the 3DS produces the same result as the claimed structure (single stored interleaved image) | Tomita: 3DS yields same stereoscopic viewing result | Nintendo: 3DS does not store a single interleaved frame in memory; it composes as it displays; result materially differs (memory-stored pixel data vs display output) | Court: Result is substantially different; 3DS composes at display and reduces latency; not equivalent |
| Whether the case is exceptional for fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. §285 | Nintendo: request for fees | Tomita: not exceptional | Court: Litigation not objectively baseless or in bad faith; no misconduct — deny fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Gen. Protecht Grp., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 619 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.) (means-plus-function literal infringement requires identical function and identical or equivalent structure)
- Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259 (Fed. Cir.) (analysis of insubstantial differences and means-plus-function equivalence)
- Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17 (U.S.) (doctrine of equivalents framework; refinement entrusted to Federal Circuit)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir.) (warning against impermissible component-by-component equivalence analysis)
- Voda v. Cordis Corp., 536 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir.) (two articulations of equivalence tests: function-way-result and insubstantial differences)
- Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., Inc., 208 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir.) (distinction between means-plus-function equivalents and doctrine-of-equivalents equivalents)
- Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Prods. Co., 339 U.S. 605 (U.S.) (known interchangeability factor in equivalence analysis)
- Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus., Inc., 145 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.) (known interchangeability and its limits in means-plus-function analyses)
- Serio-US Indus., Inc. v. Plastic Recovery Techs. Corp., 459 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir.) (standards for determining when a case is "exceptional" for §285 fees)