Triton Tech of Texas, LLC v. Nintendo of America, Inc.
753 F.3d 1375
| Fed. Cir. | 2014Background
- Triton Tech sued Nintendo for infringement of the '181 patent covering a 3D input device for computing devices.
- The claimed device uses accelerometers and rotational sensors to determine position, attitude, and motion, with a microprocessor computing values via numerical integration.
- Claim 4 recited an integrator means and related components (ADCs, FIFO, etc.).
- The district court held the asserted claims indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112 ¶ 6, finding no disclosed algorithm for the integrator means.
- The district court concluded that “numerical integration” is a broad class, not a specific algorithm, and thus not enough to disclose the corresponding structure.
- The case was transferred from the Eastern District of Texas to the Western District of Washington; on appeal, the Federal Circuit affirms indefiniteness and quashes related issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ‘integrator means’ lacks an algorithm under §112 ¶6 | Triton argues the patent discloses a two-step algorithm. | Nintendo contends no specific algorithm is disclosed. | Indefinite; no algorithm disclosed. |
| Whether numerical integration disclosure suffices as algorithm | Triton maintains ‘numerical integration’ describes a known algorithm. | Nintendo argues it describes only a broad class of methods, not an algorithm. | Indefinite; numerical integration is not an algorithm. |
| Whether Triton waived the two-step algorithm argument | Triton previously argued generally about numerical integration. | Waiver; district court record lacks argument about a specific two-step algorithm. | Waived; cannot rely on a two-step algorithm on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ergo Licensing LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc., 673 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (algorithm disclosure required for computer-implemented means-plus-function terms)
- Ibormeith IP, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA LLC, 732 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (disclosure must link structure to function and algorithm when performed by a computer)
- Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int'l Gaming Tech., 521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (requires algorithm disclosure for means-plus-function claims where a general purpose computer is used)
- Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs. Corp., 490 F.3d 946 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (bare statement of known techniques does not disclose an algorithm)
- ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., 700 F.3d 509 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (algorithm disclosure requirements for means-plus-function terms)
- Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (discretionary views on algorithm disclosure)