Ultimatepointer, L.L.C. v. Nintendo Co Ltd
816 F.3d 816
| Fed. Cir. | 2016Background
- UltimatePointer owns the ’729 patent for a direct-pointing system to control a cursor during presentations.
- Nintendo’s Wii system (remote, sensor bar, and console) allegedly practices the patented invention.
- UltimatePointer sued Nintendo in the Texas district court; disputes over severance, transfer, and mandamus arose, leading to the action being transferred to the Washington district court.
- Texas court construed “handheld device” as a direct-pointing device, based on the patent’s specification extolling direct pointing and disparaging indirect pointing.
- Washington court granted summary judgment of noninfringement, and separately held claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 of the ’729 patent indefinite.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed noninfringement and reversed the indefiniteness finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether handheld device means direct pointing | UltimatePointer argues ordinary meaning includes indirect pointing; no explicit definition disclaims scope. | Nintendo argues specification confines handheld device to direct-pointing; intrinsic evidence supports this. | Construction upheld: handheld device = handheld direct pointing device. |
| Whether Wii remote infringing under proper construction | UltimatePointer asserts the Wii remote functions as direct pointing in practice. | Nintendo contends the interaction with the sensor bar, not the screen, yields indirect pointing. | No genuine dispute; Wii remote is indirect pointing; noninfringement affirmed. |
| Whether claims 1, 3, 5, 6 are indefinite | Claims recite a handheld device with an image sensor generating data, reflecting apparatus capability. | Claims improperly merge apparatus and method using generating data language; IPXL concerns. | Not indefinite; limitations reflect apparatus capability and do not claim dual statutory classes. |
Key Cases Cited
- IPXL Holdings, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (apparatus and method claims must be clearly tied to a single statutory class)
- MEC v. Texas Instruments, 520 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (claims not indefinite when limited to apparatus with recited structure performing functions)
- HTC Corp. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG, 667 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (limitations describe environment, not method of use; not indefinite)
- Rembrandt Data Techs., LP v. AOL, LLC, 641 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (IPXL-like concerns about claims spanning two statutory classes)
- Exxon Chem. Patents, Inc. v. Lubrizol Corp., 64 F.3d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (utilizes patent title to inform claim construction)
- Chicago Board Options Exch., Inc. v. International Securities Exchange, LLC, 677 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (indefiniteness considerations and claim scope guidance)
- Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (S. Ct. 2015) (claim construction and indefiniteness framework in Supreme Court)
- In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (two statutory classes directed to system vs. user actions; indefinite analysis guide)