Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02371/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02371-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:0145 Civil Action to Obtain Patent

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAD CATZ INTERACTIVE, INC.,

an Ontario corporation,,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant,

CASE NO. 3:13-cv-2371-GPC-JLB

ORDER CONSTRUING DISPUTED

CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT

v. NOS. 6,157,370; 8,605,063

RAZER USA, LTD, a Delaware

corporation,

Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff.

I. INTRODUCTION

On October 3, 2013, Plaintiff Mad Catz Interactive, Inc. (“Mad Catz”) filed a

complaint alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,157,370 (the “’370 Patent”) by

Razer, USA, LTD (“Razer”). (ECF No. 1.) Mad Catz alleges that, among others,

Razer’s “Ouroboros” mouse infringesthe ’370 Patent. (Id. ¶ 14.) On January 10, 2014,

Razer filed a counterclaim alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,605,063 (the

“’063 Patent”) by Mad Catz. (ECF No. 15.) Razer alleges that Mad Catz’s

“C.Y.B.O.R.G. V.7” keyboard infringes the ’063 Patent. (Id. ¶ 27.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Claim construction is a matter of law to be determined by the court. Markman

v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d 517

U.S. 370 (1996). Claims are to be construed in a manner that “stays true to the claim

language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention.

- 1 - 3:13-cv-2371-GPC-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-02371-GPC-JLB Document 58 Filed 06/25/15 Page 1 of 27
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).

To construe disputed terms, the Court first looks to the claims themselves.

Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115

(Fed. Cir. 2004). Generally, claim language is given its “ordinary and customary

meaning,” defined as “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary

skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13.

In cases where the “ordinary and customary meaning” is clear, claim construction

involves “little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly

understood words.” Id. at 1314.

1

In cases where a term’s meaning would not be apparent to a person of ordinary

skill in the art at the time of the invention, the Court looks to other sources to construe

the term. Id. When looking at sources other than claim language, the Court considers

the context in which the term appears Id. at 1313. The specification is also “‘always

highly relevant’” and “‘[u]sually [] dispositive; it is the single best guide to the

meaning of a disputed term.’” Id. at 1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic,

Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Where the inventor gives a term a special

meaning, “the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Id. at 1316. Where the inventor

specifically disclaims a certain scope in the specification, that disclaimer is similarly

dispositive. Id.

The Court may also look to the patent’s prosecution history, when it is admitted

into evidence, which includes the complete record of proceedings before the USPTO,

as well as cited prior art references. Id. at 1317. Finally, the Court may consider

extrinsic evidence such as “expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned

treatises.” Markman, 52 F.3d at 980 (internal citations omitted). However, extrinsic

Razer argues that the Court “must provide a construction” and that adopting the

1

“plain and ordinarymeaning” “would be no construction at all.” (ECF No. 47, at 9–10.)

Razer’s argument misses the mark. The Court may construe disputed terms according

to their plain and ordinary meaning, see, e.g., Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.,

Ltd., No. 11-cv-1846-LHK, 2012 WL 1123752 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2012), so long as

“disputes concerning the scope of the patent claims are fully resolved.” Every Penny

Counts, Inc. v. Am. Ex. Co., 563 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

- 2 - 3:13-cv-2371-GPC-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-02371-GPC-JLB Document 58 Filed 06/25/15 Page 2 of 27
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

evidence is “less significant than the intrinsic record” and “lessreliable than the patent

and its prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms.” Phillips, 415 F.3d

at 1317–18 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

III. Discussion

A. ’370 Patent

The ’370 patent, entitled “Ergonomic Mouse Extension,” discloses a “computer

pointing device.” ’370 Patent Abstract. The computer pointing device includes “a

conventional computer mouse” and “an ergonomic extension.” Id. The application for

the ’370 Patent was filed on December 11, 1996, and the patent was issued on

December 5, 2000. It is a continuation-in-part of a prior application, which dates back

to January 3, 1996. The parties dispute six terms in the ’370 patent. 2

1.“a computer mouse”

Mad Catz’s Proposed Construction Razer’s Proposed Construction

Plain and ordinary meaning. “a cursor control device consisting of a

hand-graspable body containing a

motion-sensing component such that

movement of the device across a

surface affects the position of a cursor

on a visual display.”

The term “a computer mouse” appears in Claims 1 and 2 of the ’370 Patent.

Razer contends that the limitations it urges are intrinsic to a computer mouse and thus

must be included within the construction. Mad Catz responds that “[n]o construction

is necessary or even appropriate.” (ECF No. 46, at 8.) Though Mad Catz is correct that

For the ’370 Patent, Razer’s expert defines a person of ordinary skill in the art 2

as someone with “a bachelor’s degree in cognitive science, ergonomics, industrial

design,computer user interface design or an equivalent degree, and at least 2 years

ofdemonstrated real-world experience in the field of computer user interface

design,computer ergonomics and/or industrial design” or with “expertise in and

appreciation of human factors in computing systems as well as sufficient knowledge

of hardware and software technology to be able to specify and/or direct engineer(s) in

the building ofsystems to human-computer interaction specifications.” (ECF No. 47-9,

at 7.) Mad Catz does not offer a definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. The

Court findsthatRazer’s definition is reasonable and therefore adoptsRazer’s definition

of a person of ordinary skill in the art.

- 3 - 3:13-cv-2371-GPC-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-02371-GPC-JLB Document 58 Filed 06/25/15 Page 3 of 27
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

“not all terms require construction,” (id.), the Court must resolve disputes between the

parties. Every Penny Counts, 563 F.3d at 1383. Because of Mad Catz’s view, they

appear to dispute only Razer’s inclusion ofthe term“consisting” and “body.” (ECF No.

46, at 8–9; ECF No. 50, at 3–4.)

a. Claim Language

The claims themselves do not define the term “a computer mouse.” Thus the

Court turns to the specification.

b. Specification

The specification states that present invention includes a “conventional computer

mouse” and notes that “‘point and click’ operation has become widespread.” ’370

Patent, 1:19, 2:14. The specification also recites that the invention includes “an

ergonomic extension adapted to support a human palm,” which supports Mad Catz’s

contention that the computer mouse need not be hand-graspable. Id. at 2:14–15. The

specification further recites that a mouse “is moved on a flat surface to effect

corresponding movement of an icon on a computer screen.” Id. at 1:24–26.

c. Extrinsic Evidence

Razer’s expert, Eric Gould Bear, opines that “‘computer mouse’ was used

according to its plain and ordinary meaning at that time,” but it would have had “a

particular meaning to persons of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by technical

dictionary definitions and prior patents available at the time of the invention.” (ECF

No. 46-1, Ex. C, at 26.) Razer further points to THE IEEE STANDARD DICTIONARY OF

ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS TERMS, (6th Ed. 1996), which defines a mouse as a

“cursor control device, used as a locator, consisting of a hand-held control box within

some sort of motion-sensing component such that the position or movement of the

mouse on a surface controls the position of a cursor on a display” and U.S. Patent No.

5,414,445 which recites that moving a computer input device “move[s] a cursor on a

computer screen.” (ECF No. 46-1, Ex. C, at 26.)

Mad Catz responds that Razer’s construction is too limited because it excludes

- 4 - 3:13-cv-2371-GPC-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-02371-GPC-JLB Document 58 Filed 06/25/15 Page 4 of 27
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

traditional computer mouse components as well as the slot and extension arm

referenced in Claim 1. (ECF No. 50, at 3–4.) The Court agrees with Mad Catz that

Razer’s use of “consisting of” is unwarranted. “Consisting of” is a closed transition

phrase that excludes any element not specified in the list. AFG Inds., Inc. v. Cardinal

IG Co., Inc., 239 F.3d 1239, 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Because, as Mad Catz points out,

computer mice can include things such asscroll wheels, buttons, keys, and other parts,

as well as a slot or extension arm, the open transition phrase “comprising” is more

appropriate. See id.

With regards to the “body” limitation urged by Razer, the Court finds no support

for that limitation. The term “mouse body” appears only in alternative embodiments of

the invention and the IEEE definition does not use the term “body.” However, the

Court does find support in both the IEEE definition and U.S. Patent No. 5,414,445 for

the other limitations urged by Razer. The specification states that computer mice

“effect movement of an icon on a computer screen,” supporting Razer’s “cursor control

device” and “position or movement of the mouse on a surface controls the position of

a cursor on a display” language. U.S. Patent No. 5,414,445 references that computer

mice are “grasp[ed],” which supportsRazer’s “hand graspable” language asthe IEEE’s

definition using “hand-held” is not necessarily supported since computer mice are

moved by a hand and not necessarily “held” by a hand. Mad Catz does not appear to

dispute that these are supported limitations as Mad Catz takes primary issue with

Razer’s use of “body” and “consisting of.”

Accordingly, the Court construes “a computer mouse” to mean “a handgraspable cursor control device comprising a motion-sensing component such that the

position or movement of the mouse on a surface controls the position of a cursor on a

display.”

/ /

/ /

/ /

- 5 - 3:13-cv-2371-GPC-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-02371-GPC-JLB Document 58 Filed 06/25/15 Page 5 of 27
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2. “an extension arm fixed to the computer mouse and extending outwardly

therefrom”

Mad Catz’s Proposed Construction Razer’s Proposed Construction

Plain and ordinary meaning. “an extension arm fixedly attached to

the rear of the body of the computer

mouse and extending outwardly

therefrom”

The term “an extension arm fixed to the computer mouse and extending

outwardly therefrom” appears in Claim 1 of the ’370 patent. Razer contends that the

dispute between the parties is whether the “extension arm” is a part of the “computer

mouse.” (ECF No. 47, at 10.)

a. Claim Language/Specification

As an initial matter, the claim language indicates that the “the ergonomic

extension,” which includesthe “extension arm,” isseparate fromthe “computermouse”

as both of those objects are listed as separate elements comprising the “computer

pointing device” in Claim 1. ’370 Patent, 6:18–45. The claim language stating that the

“extension arm” is “fixed to the computer mouse and extend[s] outwardly therefrom”

further indicatesthat the “computer mouse” does not itself include the “extension arm.”

Id. at 6:33.

The claim language itself contains no reference to the way nor the position from

which the extension must be attached to the mouse. Nor does the language Razer adds

to its proposed construction appear in the claimlanguage. However, the claimlanguage

in Claim 1 does state that the ergonomic extension is “adapted to support a human

palm.” The background to the invention states that the “ergonomic wrist rest”is

“length-adjustable so as to enable the wrist rest to provide an ergonomic benefit to

users with different size hands.” Id. at 1:13–15. The specification further recites that

“the computer mouse has a rear portion and an upper surface” and that the “ergonomic

extension includes a cavity therebeneath adapted for insertion of at least part of the rear

portion of the mouse.” Id. at 2:35–38.

- 6 - 3:13-cv-2371-GPC-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-02371-GPC-JLB Document 58 Filed 06/25/15 Page 6 of 27
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Mad Catz argues that “nothing in the claims or specification supports Razer’s

position that the extension arm must be fixed or even fixedly attached to the rear of the

body of the computer mouse.” (ECF No. 46, at 10.) Razer draws the term “fixedly

attached” from specification language used to describe an alternative embodiment of

the invention. See ’370 Patent, 4:36. However, neither Razer nor its expert explains

what difference, if any, exists between the terms “fixed” and “fixedly attached.”

b. Extrinsic Evidence

Razer’s expert opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art would find that,

in light of the specification, “the extension arm is fixedly attached to the rear of the

body of the computer mouse.” (ECF No. 47-9 ¶ 35.) Razer’s expert arrives at this

conclusion because “the patent describes two ways in which the extension arm is

attached to the mouse” and “Claim 1 refers only to the way in which the extension arm

is fixed to the body of the mouse.” (Id. ¶ 34.)

In light of the specification and claim language’s indication that the ergonomic

extension supports the palm and/or wrist, and that the buttons on the computer mouse

are positioned at the front, the Court does find that a person of ordinary skill in the art

would limit the term language to mean that the extension arm is fixed to the rear of the

computer mouse. While the Court agrees with Razer’s expert that Claim 1 refers to a

device where the extension arm is “fixed” to the computer mouse, there is no support

in the claim language or specification for the limitation that it must be fixed to the

computer mouse’s “body.” Additionally, the term “fixedly attached” is used only in a

single alternative embodiment of the invention and thusis not an appropriate limitation

for this claim language. Accordingly, the Court does not find that a person of ordinary

skill in the art would limit the term “fixed” to “fixedly attached” or to require being

fixed to the “body ofthe computer mouse.” However, because the ergonomic extension

is designed to support either a palm or wrist or both, there is support for the limitation

that the ergonomic extension must be attached to the rear of the mouse since the mouse

itself would generally be operated by a user’s fingers which are in front of a user’s

- 7 - 3:13-cv-2371-GPC-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-02371-GPC-JLB Document 58 Filed 06/25/15 Page 7 of 27
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

palm and wrist.

Accordingly, the Court construes the term “an extension arm fixed to the

computer mouse and extending outwardly therefrom” to mean “an extension arm fixed

to the rear of computer mouse and extending outwardly therefrom.” Thus, the Court

does not limit the term to mean that the extension arm must be fixedly attached to the

body of the computer mouse.

3. “an extension arm extending between the computer mouse and the

ergonomic extension”

Mad Catz’s Proposed Construction Razer’s Proposed Construction

Plain and ordinary meaning. “either: (1) one end of the extension

arm is fixedly attached to the rear of the

body of the computer mouse, or extends

into the rear of the body of the

computer mouse, and the other end of

the extension arm extends into the slot

in the ergonomic extension and is

releaseably locked therein; or (2) one

end of the extension arm is fixedly

attached to the ergonomic extension

and the other end of the extension arm

extends into the slot in the rear of the

body of the computer mouse and is

releaseably locked therein”

The term “an extension arm extending between the computer mouse and the

ergonomic extension” appearsin Claim2 of the ’370 patent. This language from Claim

2 is quite similar to the above language from Claim 1 except that the extension arm

“extend[s] between” the computer mouse and ergonomic extension rather than being

“fixed to” and “extending” from the computer mouse. Razer argues that the parties’

dispute over this language “is the same as their dispute over the similar phrase from

claim 1.” (ECF No. 47, at 11.)

a. Claim Language/Specification

As an initial matter, the claim language indicates that the “the ergonomic

extension,” which includesthe “extension arm,” isseparate fromthe “computermouse”

as both of those objects are listed as separate elements comprising the “computer

- 8 - 3:13-cv-2371-GPC-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-02371-GPC-JLB Document 58 Filed 06/25/15 Page 8 of 27
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

pointing device” in Claim2. ’370 Patent, 6:47–7:7. The claimlanguage stating that the

“extension arm” “extend[s] between the computer mouse and ergonomic extension”

further indicatesthat the “computer mouse” does not itself include the “extension arm.”

Id.

The claimlanguage contains no reference to the way nor the position fromwhich

the extension must be attached to the mouse. The claim language in Claim 2 does

reference a slot, noting that there is “a slot in the computer mouse or the ergonomic

extension adapted to receive the extension arm for slidable movement therein.” Id. The

claim language also recites that the ergonomic extension is “adapted to support a

human palm.” Id.

The specification statesthat the invention contains an “ergonomicwrist rest” that

is “length-adjustable so as to enable the wrist rest to provide an ergonomic benefit to

users with different size hands.” Id. at 1:13–15. The specification further recites that

“the computer mouse has a rear portion and an upper surface” and that the “ergonomic

extension includes a cavity therebeneath adapted for insertion of at least part of the rear

portion of the mouse.” Id. at 2:35–38.

b. Extrinsic Evidence

Razer’s expert opinesthat a person of ordinary skill in the art would construe the

term in favor of Razer’s proposed construction because the claim language read in

connection with the specification “would have communicated . . . more about how the

extension arm interacts with the mouse and the ergonomic extension, which is not

captured in the words of the claim by themselves.” (ECF No. 47-9 ¶ 37.) Razer’s main

contention is that “extending between” means that the “extension arm” is either

“fixedly attached” to the computer mouse or “fixedly attached” to the ergonomic

extension and that the other end of the “extension arm” therefore “extends into a slot”

on either the computer mouse or ergonomic extension that it is not attached to.

As discussed above, the Court does find that the “rear of the computer mouse”

limitation urged by Razer is appropriate in light of the specification and claim

- 9 - 3:13-cv-2371-GPC-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-02371-GPC-JLB Document 58 Filed 06/25/15 Page 9 of 27
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

language’s indication that the ergonomic extension supportsthe palmand/or wrist, and

that the buttons on the computer mouse are positioned at the front. However, nothing

in the claim language, specification, or extrinsic evidence cited by Razer supports the

contention that the extension arm in Claim 2 must be fixed to either the computer

mouse orthe ergonomic extension. While the claimlanguage indicatesthat one ofthese

must have a slot “to receive the extension arm,” the claim language’s use of the term

“comprises” is open-ended, indicating that it is at least possible for both to have a slot.

See CIAS, Inc. v. Alliance Gaming Corp., 504 F.3d 1356, 1359–60 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Thus a person of ordinary skill in the art would not limit the extension arm to be

“fixedly attached” to either the computer mouse or the ergonomic extension because

the claim language and specification do not indicate exactly how the extension arm is

to be attached to the end that does not have the requisite slot.

The other limitations urged by Razer regarding one end extending into a slot and

the extension arm being “releasably locked” are already included within the rest of the

claim language where it states that the invention contains: (1) “a slot in the computer

mouse or the ergonomic extension adapted to receive the extension arm for slidable

movement therein”; and (2) a “locking means for releasably locking the extension arm

at any of a plurality of positions in the slot.” ’370 Patent, 6: 33–39. This claim language

makes these additional limitations improper because they would render the other

language in the claim redundant. See Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Tyco Healthcare

Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (collecting cases where claim

constructions that would render claim language superfluous were rejected).

Accordingly, the Court construesthe term“an extension arm extending between

the computer mouse and the ergonomic extension” to mean “an extension arm

extending between the rear of the computer mouse and the ergonomic extension.”

Thus, the Court does not include any other limitations urged by Razer.

/ /

- 10 - 3:13-cv-2371-GPC-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-02371-GPC-JLB Document 58 Filed 06/25/15 Page 10 of 27
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4. “releasably locking the extension arm in any of a plurality of positions in

the slot”

Mad Catz’s Proposed Construction Razer’s Proposed Construction

Plain and ordinary meaning. “frictionally engaging the extension

arm in the slot, such that movement of

the ergonomic extension relative to the

extension arm is only possible when a

sufficient amount of force is applied

along the axis of the extension arm to

bring the protuberance out of frictional

engagement with one of the notches.”

The term “releasably locking the extension arm in any of a plurality of positions

in the slot” appears in Claims 1 and 2 of the ’370 patent.

a. Claim Language/Specification

Claims 1 and 2 do not address whether friction is a required limitation. The

specification does note that, in the alternative embodiment in Figure 5, “a sufficient

amount of force is applied to bring the protuberance out of engagement with the

notch.” ’370 Patent, 4:47–50.

b. Extrinsic Evidence

Razer’s expert opines that specification’s statement that “a sufficient amount of

force is applied to bring the protuberance out of engagement with the notch” provides

support for Razer’s construction. (ECF No. 47-9 ¶ 55.) Razer’s expert further opines

that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the alternative

embodiment in Figure 9 to “provide the only enablement of human interaction for the

embodiments of Claims 1 and 2.” (Id. ¶ 56.) Finally, Razer’s expert opines that the

specification’s statement that the “protuberance is preferably biased” meant that this

“bias”:

enables the protuberance, in a relaxed position, to frictionally engage with

a notch on the extension armto retain the ergonomic extension in a locked

position relative to the mouse, and that when desired to adjust the position

of the ergonomic extension relative to the mouse, force would need be

applied along the axis of the extension arm to both the ergonomic

extension and the mouse sufficient to overcome the resiliency of the

protuberance so asto bring the protuberance out of frictional engagement

- 11 - 3:13-cv-2371-GPC-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-02371-GPC-JLB Document 58 Filed 06/25/15 Page 11 of 27
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

with the notch and to enable movement of the ergonomic extension

relative to the mouse.

(Id. ¶ 51.)

Mad Catz responds that Razer “conflates clear language addressing the need for

a locking means with what Razer believes is the only locking means possible.” (ECF

No. 46, at 12.) Mad Catz argues that “claims 1 and 2 disclose at least two separate

means to adjust the computer mouse relative to the ergonomic extension.” (ECF No.

46, at 13.)

The Court agrees with Mad Catz. The limitations urged by Razer come from one

alternative embodiment and the Federal Circuit has “repeatedly warned against

confining the claims to those embodiments.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. While the

specification makes clear that friction is one method by which the “releasable lock[]”

can function, it is not the only method. There exist other forces, such as magnetism,

that could be used to create a “releasably locking extension arm.”

Accordingly, the Court construesthe term“releasably locking the extension arm

in any of a plurality of positions in the slot” to have its plain and ordinary meaning.

Thus the Court does not limit the term to mean that there must be frictional

engagement or that a sufficient amount of force must be required to release the

extension arm.

5. “protuberance adjacent to the slot”

Mad Catz’s Proposed Construction Razer’s Proposed Construction

“Protuberance” and “adjacent to the

slot” should be defined separately.

“material of the interior of the

ergonomic extension that: (1) bulges

beyond the surrounding surface of that

portion of the ergonomic extension; (2)

extends into the slot in the ergonomic

extension; and (3) is shaped so to be

able to frictionally engage with any of a

plurality of the notches in the extension

arm.” 

The term “protuberance adjacent to the slot” appears in Claims 1 and 2 of the

’370 Patent. The term“protuberance” also appearsinClaims 1 and 2 of the ’370 Patent.

- 12 - 3:13-cv-2371-GPC-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-02371-GPC-JLB Document 58 Filed 06/25/15 Page 12 of 27
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Razer proposesthat “protuberance adjacent to the slot” should be construed as a single

phrase. Mad Catz argues that “protuberance” and “adjacent to the slot” should be

defined separately.

a. “protuberance”

Mad Catz’s Proposed Construction Razer’s Proposed Construction

“anything, such as a knob, a pin, or a

screw that protrudes.”

Should be defined in conjunction with

“adjacent to the slot.”

b. “adjacent to the slot”

Mad Catz’s Proposed Construction Razer’s Proposed Construction

Plain and ordinary meaning. Should be defined in conjunction with

“protuberance.”

c. Claim Language/Specification

The claim language in Claims 1 and 2 states that the protuberance “engag[es]

with any of the plurality of notches.” ’370 Patent, 6:42. The specification states that

“[t]he guided movement is provided by a first guide slot on the ergonomic extension

that engages with and is guided by a protuberance on the rearwardly extending lever.”

Id. at 2:56–58. The specification also includes several alternative embodiments that

reference the protuberance, namely Figures 5, 5a, 8, and 9. In Figure 5a, the

protuberance “extends into the slot” and “ engages with one of the notches on

extension arm 102 to lock extension 100a into a desired position.” Id. at 4:41–43.

Additionally in Figure 5a, “[t]he protuberance is preferably biased so asto engage with

a notch aligned therewith to hold extension 100a in position.” Id. at 4:44–46. Finally

in Figure 5a, “[w]hen it is desired to vary the position of the mouse 100 relative to

extension 100a, a sufficient amount of force is applied to bring the protuberance out

of engagement with the notch.” Id. at 4:46–49.

In Figure 9,“a protuberance 88 is provided that issized and shaped to be inserted

into and guided by slot 80, and may also serve as a stop to prevent movement of the

ergonomic extension beyond a desired position.” Id. at 5:53–57. Additionally in Figure

- 13 - 3:13-cv-2371-GPC-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-02371-GPC-JLB Document 58 Filed 06/25/15 Page 13 of 27
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9, the protuberance is located “[t]oward the distal end of the lever 84.” Id. at 5:53.

Finally in Figure 9, “[w]hen it is desired to adjust the extension of the wrist support

relative to the mouse body, force is applied to wrist support 50 and to mouse body 54

sufficient to overcome the resiliency of lever 54 so as to bring teeth 90 out of

engagement with teeth 82 and to enable movement of the wrist support relative to the

mouse body.” Id. at 5:62–67.

d. Extrinsic Evidence

First, Razer argues that Figures 8 and 9 of the ’370 Patent support its

construction because they “provide an unambiguous representation of the kind of

structure meant by the term ‘protuberance.’” (ECF No. 47, at 14.) Figure 9 of the ’370

patent represents “protuberance 88” as a three dimensional rectangular object that

sticks out and is “[t]oward the distal end of the lever 84.” Razer’s expert opines that a

person of ordinary skill in the art “would recognize this illustrated ordinary

‘protuberance 88’ as bulging beyond the surrounding or adjacent surface, jutting out

just enough ‘to be inserted into and guided by slot 80.’” (ECF No. 47-9 ¶ 40.) Second,

Razer argues that Figures 5 and 5a supports its construction that the “protuberance”

“extends into the slot in the ergonomic extension.” (ECF No. 47, at 13–14.) Razer’s

expert similarly opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the

description to mean that the protuberance “extends into the slot in the ergonomic

extension.” (ECF No. 47-9 ¶ 44.) Third, Razer argues that the “description of the

protuberance [’370 Patent, 4:39–42], in combination with the protuberance of Figures

8–9, would have taught that the protuberance must extend into the slot in order to

engage with the notches on the extension arm in addition to being adjacent to the slot.”

(ECF No. 47, at 15; ECF No. 47-9 ¶ 41.)

Mad Catz responds that: (1) the intrinsic evidence does not limit the

“protuberance to the interior of the ergonomic extension (palm rest)”; (2) “Claims 1

and 2 explicitly state that the protuberance is located either ‘on the extension arm’. . .

or ‘adjacent the slot’ on the ergonomic extension (palm rest) . . .”; (3) the claims do not

- 14 - 3:13-cv-2371-GPC-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-02371-GPC-JLB Document 58 Filed 06/25/15 Page 14 of 27
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

require that the protuberance “must extend into the slot in the ergonomic extension”;

and (4) “there is nothing in the language of claims 1 and 2, or the written description,”

that “require[s] ‘frictional engagement’ with the notch.” (ECF No. 46, at 15–16

(citations omitted).) Mad Catz supports its construction of “protuberance” by

referencing the dictionary definitions cited by Razer—“‘the quality of being

protuberant,’ to ‘jut out,’ a ‘protuberant part of thing,’ and a ‘projection’”—and the

words of the ’370 patent’s co-inventor who stated that “the typical engineering person

or design person would have a certain vision in their head about what a pin looks like,

and I would say that’s a subset of a protuberans.” (ECF No. 46, at 15 (citations

omitted).)

The Court notes that Figures 5 and 5a, and Figures 8 and 9, represent two

“alternative embodiment[s]” of the invention. Limitations in specific alternative

embodiments generally do not limit the claims themselves. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.

As the Court has previously noted, though friction is one way in which the invention

could work, there is no indication that it is the only way it could work. Additionally,

nothing in the specification or claim language supports Razer’s limitation that the

protuberance must be made of the “material of the interior of the ergonomic extension”

as it could be made of a different type of material. Finally, there is no support for

Razer’s contention that the protuberance must “extend[] into the slot.” That proposed

limitation again comes from an alternative embodiment. All the claims require is that

the protuberance be “adjacent to the slot” and “engage[] with” the “notches.” Razer has

not provided any support outside of an alternative embodiment for limiting this

engagement to require friction or insertion into the slot.

With regards to “protuberance,” there issupport for either “bulg[ing] beyond the

surrounding surface,” as Razer urgers, or “protrud[ing],” as Mad Catz urges. The

protuberance clearly extends beyond the area of the invention that surrounds it.

Between these two definitions, the term “bulges” implies a more rounded object and

thus the term “protrudes,” which does not carry this connotation, is more appropriate.

- 15 - 3:13-cv-2371-GPC-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-02371-GPC-JLB Document 58 Filed 06/25/15 Page 15 of 27
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

However, the Court rejects Mad Catz’s full definition as the term “anything, such as

a knob, pin, or a screw” is too open-ended, specifically the use of the term “anything”

because the “protuberance” is a physical object. Thus the Court rejects both proposed

constructions and instead construes “protuberance” to mean “an object that protrudes.”

Accordingly, the Court construes the term “protuberance” to mean “an object

that protrudes” and construes the term “adjacent to the slot” to have its plain and

ordinary meaning. The Court does not limit these terms to mean that the protuberance

must be made of the material of the interior of the ergonomic extension, must extend

into the slot, or must be shaped so as to be able to frictionally engage with any of a

plurality of the notches in the extension arm.

6. “notches on the extension arm”

Mad Catz’s Proposed Construction Razer’s Proposed Construction

“Notches” and “on the extension arm”

should be defined separately.

“indentations in the extension arm that

are shaped so as to be frictionally

engageable with the protuberance in the

slot.”

a. “notches”

Mad Catz’s Proposed Construction Razer’s Proposed Construction

“indentation, hole, or concave opening

of any shape capable of engaging a

protuberance.”

Should be defined in conjunction with

“on the extension arm.”

b. “on the extension arm”

Mad Catz’s Proposed Construction Razer’s Proposed Construction

Plain and ordinary meaning. Should be defined in conjunction with

“notches.”

The term “notches on the extension arm” appears in claims 1 and 2 of the ’370

patent. The parties again dispute whether the claims should be limited to friction.

c. Claim Language/Specification

The claims state that “the protuberance engage[s] with any of the plurality of

notches.” ’370 Patent, 6:43. The specification states that “[a] preferred locking means

- 16 - 3:13-cv-2371-GPC-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-02371-GPC-JLB Document 58 Filed 06/25/15 Page 16 of 27
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

includes a protuberance on the extension arm and a plurality of notches adjacent to the

slot.” Id. at 2:30–32. The alternative embodiment in Figure 5 describes the notches as

“defin[ing] selected adjustment positions for palmsupport tail extension 100a” and that

“[t]he protuberance engages with one of the notches on extension arm 102 to lock

extension 100a into a desired position.” Id. at 4:34–44. Finally, Figure 5 notes that “the

protuberance may be located on extension arm102, and the notches located in the slot.” 

Id. at 4:51–53.

d. Extrinsic Evidence

Based on the alternative embodiments, Razer’s expert opines that the

protuberance must “frictionally engage” with the notches. (ECF No. 47-9 ¶ 42–43.)

Razer’s expert further opines that, based on Webster’s Third New International

Dictionary, Unabridged, (1993), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have

understood the term “notch” to mean ““a V-shaped indentation or hollow (as in a

surface or edge),” which is the exact definition from that dictionary. (ECF No. 47-9 ¶

48.) Mad Catz contends that

As discussed several times above, the Court rejects the frictional limitation

argued by Razer. That limitation is contained in an alternative embodiment and there

is no indication that other embodiments that do not use frictional engagement are not

possible. Moreover, the claims themselves indicate no such limitation.

With regards to “notches,” Mad Catz concedes that the parties “agree that the

commonly accepted meaning of ‘notch’ is an indentation.” (ECF No. 46, at 17.)

However, Mad Catz does not appear to provide support for its additional meanings of

“hole” and “concave opening.” (See id.) Citing Riddell, Inc. v. Schutt Sports, Inc., No.

08-cv-0071-BBC, 2009 WL 2045941, at *4, *7 (W.D. Wis. Jul. 10, 2009), Mad Catz

argues that the definition should be appended to add “of any shape.” (ECF No. 46, at

17.) In Riddell, one of the proposed constructions implied that the indentations could

be either V-shaped or U-shaped. 2009 WL 2045941, at *3–4. The Riddell court found

this too limiting and thus defined “notches” as “indentations of any shape.” Id. The

- 17 - 3:13-cv-2371-GPC-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-02371-GPC-JLB Document 58 Filed 06/25/15 Page 17 of 27
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Court agrees that “indentation” is the appropriate definition and rejects Mad Catz

addition of “hole” and “concave opening” because there is no support for those terms

in the evidence. However, the Court agrees with the addition of “of any shape” because

the Court has already rejected the shape limitation urged by Razer and there is no

indication in the claims or specification that the shape is limited in any way other than

so it can engage with the protuberance.

With regards to “on the extension arm,” Razer essentially defines this as “in the

extension arm,” but does not provide any support for changing the preposition. As the

Court does not find that this limitation is supported by the claim language, the Court

rejects this limitation.

Accordingly, the Court construes the term “notches” to mean “indentations of

any shape” and construesthe term“on the extension arm” to have its plain and ordinary

meaning, The Court does not limit these terms to mean that notches must be in the

extension arm or that the notches must be shaped so that they can frictionally engage

with the protuberance

B. ’063 Patent

The ’063 patent discloses a “device lighting apparatus and method” which

comprises: (1) “a key operable for communicating with a computing device,” (2) “a

light emitting device for lighting the key,” and (3) “a selector operable for selecting

between a plurality of lighting schemes.” ’063 Patent Abstract. Essentially, the ‘’063

patent discloses a computer input device that has keys, such as a keyboard or gaming

controller, and those keys can be lit in different ways that allow users to tell the

difference between keys in low ambient light conditions. See id. The application for the

’063 patent was filed on August 30, 2007, and the patent was issued on December 10,

2013. Razer is asserting only independent Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2–5, 8, 10,

3

For the ’063 Patent, Razer’s expert defines a person of ordinary skill in the art 3

as someone with “a bachelor’s degree in cognitive science, ergonomics, industrial

design,computer user interface design or an equivalent degree, and at least 2 years

ofdemonstrated real-world experience in the field of computer user interface

- 18 - 3:13-cv-2371-GPC-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-02371-GPC-JLB Document 58 Filed 06/25/15 Page 18 of 27
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and 12. (ECF No. 47, at 19.)

1. “plurality of keys”

The term “plurality of keys” appears in asserted Claims 1, 2, 5, and 10 of the

’063 patent. The parties agree that the construction of this term is “two or more keys.”

(ECF No. 39, at 21.) Accordingly, the Court construes the term “plurality of keys” to

mean “two or more keys.”

2. “each of the”

The term “each of the” appears in asserted Claim 1 of the ’063 patent. The

parties agree that the construction of this term is “each and every one (i.e., all).” (ECF

No. 39, at 21.) Accordingly, the Court construes the term “each of the” to mean “each

and every one (i.e., all).”

3. “at least one of . . . and”

Mad Catz’s Proposed Construction Razer’s Proposed Construction

Conjunctive:

Claims 1 and 10 – “at least one colour,

at least one of intensity, and at least one

of duration”

Claim 2 – “at least one of back-lighting

the key and at least one of permeating

light throughout at least a portion of the

key”

Claim 5 – “at least one of an

alphanumeric key, at least one of a

numeric key, and at least one of a

command key”

Disjunctive:

Claims 1 and 10 – “at least one colour

one intensity or one duration”

Claim 2 – “at least back-lighting the

key or permeating light throughout a

portion of the key”

Claim 5 – “at least one alphanumeric,

numeric, or command key”

Independent Claim 1 and dependent Claim 10 include the phrase “at least one

of colour, intensity and duration,” which refers to the possible lighting schemes. ’063

design,computer ergonomics and/or industrial design” or with “expertise in and

appreciation of human factors in computing systems as well as sufficient knowledge

of hardware and software technology to be able to specify and/or direct engineer(s) in

the building ofsystems to human-computer interaction specifications.” (ECF No. 47-9,

at 7.) Mad Catz does not offer a definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. The

Court findsthatRazer’s definition is reasonable and therefore adoptsRazer’s definition

of a person of ordinary skill in the art.

- 19 - 3:13-cv-2371-GPC-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-02371-GPC-JLB Document 58 Filed 06/25/15 Page 19 of 27
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Patent, 6:15–17, 6:46–47. Dependent Claim 2 includes the phrase “at least one of 4

back-lighting the key and permeating light throughout at least a portion of the key,”

which refers to the method by which the keys are lit. Id. at 6:22–23. Dependent Claim

5 includesthe phrase “at least one of an alphanumeric, a numeric and a command key,”

which refers to the type of keys. Id. at 6:30–31.The dispute between the parties is

whether the phrase “at least one of . . . and” connotes a conjunctive list or a disjunctive

list. (ECF No. 47, at 20.) Mad Catz argues that this always connotes a conjunctive list

(i.e., there must be at least one of each item in the list). (ECF No. 46, at 19.) Razer

argues that it is always disjunctive. (ECF No. 47, at 20.)

i. Claim Language/Specification

First, with regards to Claims 1 and 10, the specification repeatedly and

unambiguously refers to“colour, intensity and duration” in the conjunctive. See, e.g.,

’063 Patent, 3:61, 4:30–31, 5:26, 5:43. In Figure 2, the specification states that “[t]he

lighting schemesfurther define the colour, intensity and duration of each group of keys

202.” Id. at 4:30–31. In Figure 3, the specification statesthat “[m]ore specifically, each

of the plurality of lighting schemes defines the colour, intensity and duration of the

lighting of the one or more keys 102.” Id. at 5:24–27. Additionally, the specification

indicatesthat “[t]he data signals contain data corresponding to the colour, intensity and

duration of the lighting of the key 102.” Id. at 3:60–62.

Second, with regards to Claim 2, in describing Figure 1, the specification

discusses two ways in which a key can be lit: permeation and back-lighting. With

regards to permeation, the specification states:

The light emitting device 108 is preferably disposed within the key 102.

The key 102 preferably has a portion that allows light 106 to permeate

therethrough so that when the light emitting device 108 is activated to

emit light 106, the light 106 is able to permeate through the portion of the

key 102. In this manner, the key 102 is lighted by the light 106 emitted

from the light emitting device 108.

Id. at 3:28–34. With regards to backlighting, the specification next states:

This phrase is part of a larger disputed phrase in Claim 1 that the Court

4

discusses in further detail below.

- 20 - 3:13-cv-2371-GPC-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-02371-GPC-JLB Document 58 Filed 06/25/15 Page 20 of 27
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

“Alternatively, the light emitting device 108 is positioned adjacent or underneath the

key 102 such that the key 102 is back-lightable by the light emitting device 108.” Id.

at 3:35–37. Essentially, the difference between these methods is whether the light

emitting device is located within the key itself (permeation) or located adjacent or

underneath the key (back-lighting).

Third, with regards to Claim 5, in describing Figure 1, the specification states

that “the key 102 is preferably an alphanumeric, a numeric or a command key.” Id. at

3:20–21.

ii. Extrinsic Evidence

With regards to Claim 5, Razer’s expert opines that “on a keyboard, a key is

usually either an alphanumeric key, a numeric key, or a command key, not all three at

once” and thus a person of ordinary skill the art “would have understood ‘at least one

of . . . and’ in Claim 5 to be in the disjunctive.” (ECF No. 47-9 ¶ 65.) Mad Catz

responds that “the point of a patent is to create something novel, not just to repeat the

‘usual.’” (ECF No. 46, at 21.) Mad Catz further references Razer’s Lycosa Keyboard

which contains keys that have both functions and numbers (e.g., “9/Pg Up” and “8/Up

Arrow”). (See ECF No. 46-1, Ex. F, at 50–51.)

Citing SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., 358 F.3d 870, 885–88 (Fed. Cir.

2004), Mad Catz argues that the conjunctive construction is appropriate. In

SuperGuide, the Federal Circuit construed three “at least one of . . . and” phrases to be

conjunctive: (1) “at least one of a desired program start time, a desired program end

time, a desired program service, and a desired program type”; (2) “at least one of

program start time, program end time, program service, and program type”; and (3) “at

least one of the desired program start time, the desired program end time, the desired

program service, and the desired program type.” 358 F.3d at 884. The Federal Circuit

relied on a grammar treatise and noted “that nothing in the specification rebuts the

presumption that the ’211 patentee intended the plain and ordinary meaning of this

language” and that “[e]very disclosed embodiment teaches that the user must choose

- 21 - 3:13-cv-2371-GPC-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-02371-GPC-JLB Document 58 Filed 06/25/15 Page 21 of 27
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a value for each designated category.” Id. at 886–87 (citation omitted). However, as

other courts have noted “SuperGuide did not erect a universal rule of construction for

all uses of ‘at least one of’ in all patents” because “the SuperGuide court’s construction

of ‘at least of’ [sic] was based on the particular facts of the particular patent at issue

there.” Fujifilm Corp. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, No. 12-cv-3587-WHO, 2015 WL

1265009, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2015) (collecting cases). Thus whether “at least one

of . . . and” is conjunctive or disjunctive depends on the patent itself and can even vary

within a single patent depending on the context. As the Court discusses below, the

specification and other factors here distinguish “at least one of . . . and” in Claims 2

and 5 from the limitation in SuperGuide, but the specification and other factors make

“at least one of . . . and” in Claims 1 and 10 similar to the limitation in SuperGuide. 

With regards to the lighting scheme in Claims 1 and 10, the Court finds that the

list is conjunctive. First, the specification indicates that the data signal referenced in

Claim 10 contains data for “colour, intensity and duration”; there is no indication that

the signal would contain data for just one ofthe three options. Second, the specification

notes that in the embodiments in Figures 2 and 3 have lighting schemes that contain

“colour, intensity and duration”; there is no indication that a lighting scheme can have

just one of these options. Finally, the lists in Claims 1 and 10 refer to a “group of keys”

and a “plurality of keys” which reinforces the conjunctive construction. Because

multiple keys can be lit, multiple colors, durations, and intensities could be chosen

where different options would apply to each key.

With regards to the lightning techniques in Claim 2, the Court finds that the list

is disjunctive. The two types of lighting, permeation and back-lighting, are indicated

as alternatives by the specification. Moreover, a conjunctive construction of Claim 2

would be nonsensical as it would not make sense that there could be two or more backlighting of a key or two or more permeation of light through at least a portion of the

key. Unlike colors, durations, or intensities, a key is either back-lit or it is not, whereas

there are such things as multiple colors or multiple durations or multiple intensities.

- 22 - 3:13-cv-2371-GPC-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-02371-GPC-JLB Document 58 Filed 06/25/15 Page 22 of 27
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Finally, this list specifically refers to a single key—the claim language states “one of

the plurality of keys” and “the key”—which makes sense that the list would be

disjunctive and refer to a single option per key. This is in contrast to the lists in Claims

1 and 10, that refer to a “group of keys” or “plurality of keys,” where it makes sense

that multiple options within the list could be selected because each key could have a

separate value for the options in those lists.

With regards to the key types in Claim 5, the Court finds that the list is

disjunctive. Though Mad Catz argues that a combination of these key typesis possible,

its construction would require that every single key be a combination of alphanumeric,

numeric, and command, which does not fit with how a person of ordinary skill in the

art would construe the types of keys on a keyboard since many keys include only a

single of the above options.

Accordingly, the Court construes “at least one of colour, intensity and duration”

in Claims 1 and 10 to mean “at least one colour, at least one intensity, and at least one

duration.” The Court construes “at least one of back-lighting the key and permeating

light throughout a portion of the key” in Claim 2 to mean “at least back-lighting the key

or permeating lighting through at least a portion of the key.” The Court construes “at

least one of an alphanumeric, a numeric and a command key” to mean “at least an

alphanumeric, a numeric, or a command key.”

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

- 23 - 3:13-cv-2371-GPC-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-02371-GPC-JLB Document 58 Filed 06/25/15 Page 23 of 27
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4. “each of the plurality of lighting schemes defining at least one of colour,

intensity and duration of the lighting of a predetermined group of keys

which are usable in accordance with a corresponding mode of an

application running on the computing device”

Mad Catz’s Proposed Construction Razer’s Proposed Construction

“each of the plurality of lighting

schemes, which each set the lighting

of certain keys, defining at least one of

colour, intensity and duration of the

lighting of a predetermined group of

keys which are usable in accordance

with a corresponding mode of an

application running on a computing

device, such that each of the usable

keys are backlighted and, thereby,

differentiated from any nonusable

keys, which are not backlighted, as

selected by the corresponding

software mode”

5

“each of the plurality of lighting

schemes defining at least one colour or

one intensity or one duration of the

lighting of a predetermined group of

keys which are usable in accordance

with an operating mode of a running

computer application, such that the

predetermined group of keys are

differentiated from other keys that

are functionally distinct from the

predetermined group of keys during

the present operating mode”

The phrase “each of the plurality of lighting schemes defining at least one of

colour, intensity and duration of the lighting of a predetermined group of keys which

are usable in accordance with a corresponding mode of an application running on the

computing device” appears in disputed Claim 1 of the ’063 patent. The parties also

dispute two phrases that appear within this larger disputed phrase: “at least one of . .

. and”; and “which are usable.”

a. “at least one of . . . and”

As discussed above, the Court construesthis phrase in Claim 1 to be conjunctive

and mean “at least one colour, at least one intensity, and at least one duration.”

/ /

/ /

/ /

Mad Catz had initially proposed the construction thatreferenced “game mode.” 5

(ECF No. 50, at 9–10.) However, in response to Razer’s arguments regarding that

phrase, Mad Catz revised their construction to more broadly refer to any computing

application, not just games. (Id.)

- 24 - 3:13-cv-2371-GPC-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-02371-GPC-JLB Document 58 Filed 06/25/15 Page 24 of 27
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

b. “which are usable”

Mad Catz’s Proposed Construction Razer’s Proposed Construction

“which are usable for a particular game

mode, as differentiated and set apart

from those keys which are not usable or

provide no function during the

particular game mode”

Plain and ordinary meaning.

c. Claim Language/Specification

In referencing a schematic view in Figure 1, the specification states “[t]he

colours for indicating the availability of different functions on the game-pad are

preferably programmable by the user.” ’063 Patent, 4:63–64. Using a game as an

example, the specification further states “a game application has predefined lighting

schemes relating to different game modes in a game. When the game progresses from

one game mode to another, the game application selects the lighting scheme that

corresponds with the current game mode for lighting the key 102.” Id. at 4:10–13.

d. Prosecution History

Mad Catz notes that “following the examiner’s initial rejection of the patent

application, the patentee amended its claims to clarify this point: ‘the plurality of

lighting schemes is configured to light up a predetermined group of keys which are

usable in accordance with a corresponding mode of an application running on the

computing device.’” (ECF No. 46, at 24; ECF No. 46-1, Ex. G, at 62.) Razer responds

that there has been “no clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope.” (ECF No.

49, at 10 (quoting TecSec, Inc. v. IBM, 731 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (Federal

Circuit “precedent requires that the alleged disavowing actions or statements made

during prosecution be both clear and unmistakable. The prosecution history at issue

here does not rise to that level.”) (quotations omitted)).) Razer further points to the

prosecution history, arguing that the patentees sought “to provide a peripheral input

device which allows a user to differentiate usable keys found on input devices, under

- 25 - 3:13-cv-2371-GPC-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-02371-GPC-JLB Document 58 Filed 06/25/15 Page 25 of 27
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

low ambient light conditions” and distinguished their patent from Hyatt because 6

“Hyatt does not disclose the usage of lighting schemes or effects to highlight different

keys or groups of keys for operation.” (Id.) 

e. Extrinsic Evidence

The Court finds support for Mad Catz’s limitation that the lighting schemes

“each set the lighting of certain keys.” Razer does not appear to respond to this

limitation. (See ECF Nos. 47, 49.) Though the claims could be argued to include

lighting schemes that light no keys, such asif the duration or intensity were set to zero,

the specification notes the invention is designed to “allow a user to differentiate usable

keys found on input devices under low ambient light conditions.” This precludes

lighting schemes that light no keys since users would not be able to differentiate if

there is no light from any of the keys.

However, with regards to Mad Catz’s proposed backlighting limitation, the

Court finds no support for that limitation. The specification specifically envisions both

back-lighting and permeation and nothing in Claim 1 suggests that permeation is not

a possible lighting method. The Court also finds no support for Mad Catz’s proposed

“any nonusable” limitation and Razer’s “functionally different” limitation. While the

claim language requires that the “predetermined group of keys” be “usable,” Claim 1

contains no requirement that the keys outside of the predetermined group cannot be

usable. Moreover, Mad Catz’s limitation introduces the term “nonusable” and “no

function” without any support. The Court agrees with Razer that a person of ordinary

skill in the art would have understood that certain keys may not be “usable” for a

certain application but could still be usable and have function, even though that

function would not relate to the application mode (e.g., the Windows key on a

keyboard designed for Microsoft Windows). Finally, the Court does find support for

Razer’s limitation that application mode must be the “present operating mode.” While

During the prosecution history, “the Patent Examiner rejected claim 1 as being

6

unpatentable over a reference authored by Hyatt.” (ECF No. 47-9 ¶ 74.)

- 26 - 3:13-cv-2371-GPC-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-02371-GPC-JLB Document 58 Filed 06/25/15 Page 26 of 27
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Claim 1 requires that there be a “corresponding mode,” the specification’s only

reference to the “present” mode is in an embodiment that gives an example where “the

game application selects the lighting scheme that corresponds with the current game

mode for lighting the key 102.” The specification then gives an alternative where the

user defines the lighting schemes and selects them via a selector. ’063 Patent

Specification (“Further alternatively, the lighting schemes are definable by a user using

the computing device 104. The lighting schemes defined by the user are downloadable

for storage in a memory of the apparatus 100. The selector 110 is for selecting one of

the lighting schemes in the memory for lighting the light emitting device 108.”).

Accordingly, the Court construes the term “each of the plurality of lighting

schemes defining at least one of colour, intensity and duration of the lighting of a

predetermined group of keys which are usable in accordance with a corresponding

mode of an application running on the computing device” to mean “each of the

plurality of lighting schemes, which each set the lighting of certain keys, defining at

least one colour, at least one intensity, and at least one duration of the lighting of a

predetermined group of keys which are usable in accordance with a corresponding

mode of an application running on the computing device.” The Court also construes

the term“which are usable” to have its plain and ordinarymeaning. The Court does not

limit these terms to mean that the keys must be backlit, that the differentiated keys

must be nonusable, be functionally different, or have no function, that the usability of

keys must be selected by the software mode, that the software mode must be the present

mode, or that keys outside of the predetermined group must be functionally different.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 25, 2015

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 27 - 3:13-cv-2371-GPC-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-02371-GPC-JLB Document 58 Filed 06/25/15 Page 27 of 27