Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02015/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02015-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 

---

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

TOMITA TECHNOLOGIES USA, LLC, 

TOMITA TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

NINTENDO CO., LTD., 

NINTENDO OF AMERICA INC.,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2016-2015

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York in No. 1:11-cv-04256-JSR, 

Judge Jed S. Rakoff.

______________________ 

Decided: March 17, 2017

______________________ 

IAN DIBERNARDO, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, 

New York, NY, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also 

represented by JOSEPH DIAMANTE, KENNETH STEIN. 

JAMES S. BLANK, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, 

New York, NY, argued for defendants-appellees. Also 

represented by SCOTT G. LINDVALL; PAUL ISAAC 

MARGULIES, Washington, DC.

Case: 16-2015 Document: 55-2 Page: 1 Filed: 03/17/2017
2 TOMITA TECHS. USA, LLC v. NINTENDO CO. 

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, BRYSON and WALLACH, Circuit 

Judges.

WALLACH, Circuit Judge. 

The parties’ patent infringement dispute concerning 

the 3DS, a handheld gaming console sold by Appellees 

Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc. (together, “Nintendo”), returns to this court. Appellants Tomita 

Technologies USA, LLC and Tomita Technologies International, Inc. (together, “Tomita”) sued Nintendo in the 

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York 

(“District Court”), alleging that the 3DS infringes claim 1 

of U.S. Patent No. 7,417,664 (“the ’664 patent”). A jury 

found that the 3DS infringes claim 1 of the ’664 patent. 

We reversed and remanded that finding because it rested 

upon an incorrect construction of “offset presetting 

means” in claim 1. See Tomita Techs. USA, LLC v. Nintendo Co. (Tomita I), 594 F. App’x 657, 659–64 (Fed. Cir. 

2014). The District Court held a bench trial on remand 

and concluded that the 3DS does not infringe “offset 

presetting means” in claim 1, as properly construed. See 

Tomita Techs. USA, LLC v. Nintendo Co. (Tomita II), 182 

F. Supp. 3d 107, 113–18 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).

Tomita appeals the District Court’s noninfringement 

finding. We have subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) (2012). We affirm.

BACKGROUND

The subject dispute involves technology that incorporates three-dimensional (i.e., 3D) images, which “typically 

[are] captured with two cameras providing slightly different images known as stereoscopic images. A viewer 

perceives a 3D effect when each eye separately views a 

stereoscopic image intended for that eye. The strength of 

the 3D effect varies with the viewing conditions.” Tomita 

Case: 16-2015 Document: 55-2 Page: 2 Filed: 03/17/2017
TOMITA TECHS. USA, LLC v. NINTENDO CO. 3

I, 594 F. App’x at 659. Because the subject appeal has a 

long history involving technical facts, we recount only 

those details necessary to dispose of the issues before us.

I. The ’664 Patent

Entitled “Stereoscopic Image Picking Up and Display 

System Based Upon Optical Axes Cross-Point Information,” the ’664 patent generally discloses “a stereoscopic video image pick-up and display system which is 

capable of providing the stereoscopic video image having a 

natural stereopsis even if the video image producing 

playback conditions are different.” ’664 patent col. 2 

l. 65–col. 3 l. 2. Claim 1 recites

[a] stereoscopic video image pick-up and display 

system comprising:

a stereoscopic video image pick-up device 

including two video image pick-up means 

for outputting video information from said 

pick-up means;

a stereoscopic video image display device

for displaying different video images for 

the eyes of a viewer; and

a medium for transmitting video image information from said stereoscopic video image pick-up device to said stereoscopic 

video image display device,

in which said stereoscopic video image 

pick-up device includes cross-point measuring means for measuring CP information on the cross-point (CP) of optical 

axes of said pick-up means and outputs information including the CP information 

and video image information to said medium; and

Case: 16-2015 Document: 55-2 Page: 3 Filed: 03/17/2017
4 TOMITA TECHS. USA, LLC v. NINTENDO CO. 

in which said stereoscopic video image 

display device includes offset presetting 

means for offsetting and displaying said 

different video images based upon said 

video image information, said cross-point 

information[,] and information on the size 

of the image which is displayed by said 

stereoscopic video image display device.

Id. col. 21 ll. 44–65 (emphases added). “Offset presetting 

means” in claim 1, a means-plus-function limitation,1

means “timing control unit 32, signal switch 40, switch 

control unit 41, and synthesis frame memory 50 described 

in Figure 3 and column 9 line 44 to column 10 line 29 and 

equivalents thereof” in the ’664 patent. Tomita I, 594 F. 

App’x at 663 (footnote omitted).

A means-plus-function limitation must recite a function and a corresponding structure. See, e.g., Ibormeith 

 

1 “A means-plus-function limitation contemplated 

by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 . . . recites a function to be performed rather than definite structure or materials for 

performing that function.” Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus., Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1307 

(Fed. Cir. 1998); see 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 (2006) (explaining that “[a]n element in a claim for a combination may be 

expressed as a means or step for performing a specified 

function without the recital of structure, material, or acts 

in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to 

cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof”). 

Congress amended § 112 when it passed the Leahy-Smith 

America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, § 4(c), 125 Stat. 

284, 296 (2011), but the amended statute does not apply 

here because the application leading to the ’664 patent 

was filed before the amended statute’s effective date, id.

§ 4(e), 125 Stat. at 297.

Case: 16-2015 Document: 55-2 Page: 4 Filed: 03/17/2017
TOMITA TECHS. USA, LLC v. NINTENDO CO. 5

IP, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 732 F.3d 1376, 1379 

(Fed. Cir. 2013). Only the disputed limitation’s structure 

is at issue. Here, the relevant corresponding structure of 

the limitation contains two parts: the timing control unit 

32 “performs the ‘offsetting’ portion of the claim function,” 

whereas “[t]he ‘displaying’ portion of the claim function is 

performed by the switch control unit 41 presetting the 

timing of switching of the signal switch 40 for writing of 

video data into synthesis frame memory 50.” Tomita I, 

594 F. App’x at 663 (internal quotation marks, brackets,

and citation omitted).

II. The 3DS

Although primarily designed to play video games, the 

3DS has a camera application and an augmented reality 

application. Similar to “offset presetting means” in claim 

1 of the ’664 patent, the 3DS produces 3D images in these 

applications by capturing and offsetting different images

on a grid with horizontal and vertical axes. See J.A. 5191, 

5193–94. Tomita alleges that these applications, described in greater detail below, infringe the disputed 

limitation.

III. Procedural Posture

The District Court found that the 3DS neither literally infringes “offset presetting means” in claim 1 of the 

’664 patent nor infringes that limitation under the doctrine of equivalents. See Tomita II, 182 F. Supp. 3d at

113–18. The District Court’s analysis consisted of two 

parts, one that examined the “offsetting” and “displaying” 

portions under the function-way-result test and another 

that examined those portions under the insubstantial 

differences test. See id. Under both tests, the District 

Court found that the 3DS and the disputed limitation do 

not possess equivalent structures. See id.

Case: 16-2015 Document: 55-2 Page: 5 Filed: 03/17/2017
6 TOMITA TECHS. USA, LLC v. NINTENDO CO. 

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

“Following a bench trial, we review a district court’s 

conclusions of law de novo and its findings of fact for clear 

error.” Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 796 F.3d 1293, 1303 

(Fed. Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). “Infringement, both 

literal and under the doctrine of equivalents, is an issue of 

fact . . . .” Roton Barrier, Inc. v. Stanley Works, 79 F.3d 

1112, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). “A factual 

finding” of noninfringement “is clearly erroneous if, 

despite some supporting evidence, we are left with a 

definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been 

made.” Allergan, 796 F.3d at 1303 (citations omitted).

II. The District Court Properly Concluded That the 3DS

Does Not Infringe Claim 1 of the ’664 Patent

Tomita contests the District Court’s conclusion that 

the 3DS does not infringe literally or under the doctrine of 

equivalents the “offset presetting means” limitation in 

claim 1 of the ’664 patent. See Appellants’ Br. 44–64. 

Tomita alleges that the District Court committed legal 

and factual errors in its analysis of the “offsetting” and 

“displaying” portions of the corresponding structure in the 

disputed limitation.2 See id. at 44–57 (discussing legal 

 

2 Tomita raises several arguments in the background section of its brief, see, e.g., Appellants’ Br. 24 

(contesting certain District Court findings), and in footnotes, see, e.g., id. at 51 n.22 (contesting other District 

Court findings). Tomita has waived those arguments, 

though we address some of them for completeness. See In 

re Baxter Int’l, Inc., 678 F.3d 1357, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) 

(holding that a party waives an argument that it raises in 

the background section of its brief, but not in the argument section); SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 

Case: 16-2015 Document: 55-2 Page: 6 Filed: 03/17/2017
TOMITA TECHS. USA, LLC v. NINTENDO CO. 7

errors), 58–64 (discussing factual errors). After setting 

forth the applicable legal framework, we address Tomita’s 

arguments on a portion-by-portion basis.

A. Legal Framework

“To prove infringement, a [party] must prove the [literal] presence of each and every claim element or its 

equivalent” in the accused product. Star Sci., Inc. v. R.J. 

Reynolds Tobacco Co., 655 F.3d 1364, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 

2011) (citation omitted). “Literal infringement of a 

means-plus-function limitation requires that the relevant 

structure in the accused device [(1)] perform the identical 

function recited in the claim and [(2)] be identical or 

equivalent to the corresponding structure in the specification.” Gen. Protecht Grp., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 619 

F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because the 

disputed limitation and the 3DS share the same function, 

the instant appeal concerns only whether the disputed 

limitation and the 3DS contain equivalent structures. 

The Supreme Court has described the test for structural 

equivalence in the means-plus-function context as “an 

application of the doctrine of equivalents in a restrictive 

role.” Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 

520 U.S. 17, 28 (1997). Thus, literal infringement and

infringement under the doctrine of equivalents turn on a 

single question: whether structural equivalency exists 

between the disputed limitation and the accused product. 

See id.

We apply “two articulations of the test for equivalence,” the function-way-result test and the insubstantial 

difference test. Voda v. Cordis Corp., 536 F.3d 1311, 1326 

 

439 F.3d 1312, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A]rguments raised 

in footnotes are not preserved.”).

Case: 16-2015 Document: 55-2 Page: 7 Filed: 03/17/2017
8 TOMITA TECHS. USA, LLC v. NINTENDO CO. 

(Fed. Cir. 2008). We describe these tests in greater detail 

below. 

B. The ’664 Patent and the 3DS Do Not Possess Equivalent “Offsetting” Structures

Tomita contests the District Court’s finding that “offset presetting means” in claim 1 of the ’664 patent and 

the 3DS do not possess equivalent offsetting structures. 

Appellants’ Br. 44–52. In so doing, Tomita challenges the 

District Court’s findings under both the function-wayresult test and the insubstantial differences test. See id. 

We address Tomita’s arguments on a test-by-test basis.

1. The Function-Way-Result Test

The function-way-result test provides that “an element in the accused device is equivalent to a claim limitation if it performs substantially the same function in 

substantially the same way to obtain substantially the 

same result.” Voda, 536 F.3d at 1326 (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). Because the parties do not 

dispute that the claim limitation and accused device share 

the same function, our analysis focuses on the “way” and 

“result” prongs of the test. In assessing each prong, we 

must determine whether the way the accused product 

performs the function or the result thereof is “substantially different” from the way or result of the subject patent. 

Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1267 

(Fed. Cir. 1999).

The District Court found “that Tomita fails both the 

way and result prongs of the test.” Tomita II, 182 F. 

Supp. 3d at 115. With respect to the way prong, the 

District Court identified the collective effect of three 

aspects of the 3DS that set its ways apart from the way 

described in the disputed limitation:

First, [the 3DS’s image] . . . transformations can 

[a]ffect multiple adjustments to an image simultaneously—for instance, vertical translations as 

Case: 16-2015 Document: 55-2 Page: 8 Filed: 03/17/2017
TOMITA TECHS. USA, LLC v. NINTENDO CO. 9

well as horizontal translations—while the ’664 

[patent’s] relative timing offset is limited to 

[a]ffecting horizontal translations. Second, [the 

3DS’s ability to] implement[] adjustments in software rather than hardware provides more flexibility, because software can be updated and the 

[3DS’s graphics processing unit] performs other 

functions related to gaming. Third, [the 3DS’s 

ability to] render[] both images [used to create the 

3D effect] allows for camera calibration to correct 

camera misalignment.

Id. (internal citations omitted). The District Court also 

found another “individual difference that is substantial on 

its own.” Id. According to the District Court, the disputed limitation offsets certain images only by adding a 

single value along the horizontal axis, whereas “the 3DS’s 

[image] transformation[s] . . . also accomplish rotations 

and scalings,” thus demonstrating that the 3DS considers 

other factors that cause its “transformation[s 

to] . . . operate” in ways “substantially different” from the 

disputed limitation. Id. (citation omitted).

Turning to the result prong, the District Court concluded that the disputed limitation and the 3DS yield 

substantially different results. The District Court found 

that “[t]he result of the structure in the ’664 patent is 

pixel data stored in frame memory . . . [,] whereas the 

3DS result is an image displayed on an LCD screen.” Id. 

The District Court also found that “the ’664 patent creates 

and stores a single, stereoscopic image[] before displaying 

it,” whereas the 3DS does not. Id. at 116 (citation omitted). 

Tomita does not challenge the District Court’s factual 

findings; instead, it asserts various legal errors, none of 

which are persuasive. First, Tomita contends that the 

District Court improperly applied the function-way-result 

test because it is “[i]rrelevant.” Appellants’ Br. 29; see id. 

Case: 16-2015 Document: 55-2 Page: 9 Filed: 03/17/2017
10 TOMITA TECHS. USA, LLC v. NINTENDO CO. 

at 30. Although the Supreme Court has acknowledged 

that the test “often provides a poor framework for analyzing” non-mechanical products or processes, WarnerJenkinson, 520 U.S. at 39–40, it has never disavowed the 

application of that test under particular circumstances 

and has left it to our court to decide the test’s application 

in future cases, id. at 40. Indeed, we have applied the test 

to patents covering products and processes similar to the 

’664 patent. See, e.g., Brilliant Instruments, Inc. v. 

GuideTech, LLC, 707 F.3d 1342, 1346–49 (Fed. Cir. 2013) 

(analyzing a patent that discloses circuits that measure 

the timing errors of digital signals in high speed microprocessors).

Second, Tomita avers that the District Court “flipped 

[the] equivalence analysis on its head” in the functionway-result test by “evaluating equivalence in the context 

of the accused device,” “rather than evaluating equivalence in the context of the invention.” Appellants’ Br. 25

(citation omitted). However, evaluating whether the 

accused product possesses something of significance that 

is not found in the corresponding structure of the subject 

patent is precisely what the District Court was required 

to assess. See, e.g., Gemstar-TV Guide Int’l, Inc. v. Int’l 

Trade Comm’n, 383 F.3d 1352, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 

(holding that an accused product did not infringe because 

it “relied on a different technology that could produce 

results unattainable by” the corresponding structure in 

the subject patent). 

Third, Tomita contends that the District Court found 

under the way prong “that software implementation 

essentially could never be equivalent to a hardware 

implementation” and that such a finding conflicts with 

our decision in Overhead Door Corp. v. Chamberlain 

Group, Inc., 194 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Appellants’ 

Br. 32; see id. at 39–41. In support of its argument, 

Tomita quotes the following passage from Overhead Door: 

“it is a fundamental and well understood tenet of the 

Case: 16-2015 Document: 55-2 Page: 10 Filed: 03/17/2017
TOMITA TECHS. USA, LLC v. NINTENDO CO. 11

computing art that any software process can be transformed into an equivalent hardware process, and any 

hardware process can be transformed into an equivalent 

software process.” Id. at 20–21 (quoting 194 F.3d at 

1269). Although we found in Overhead Door that the 

expert’s testimony precluded summary judgment of noninfringement, we did not hold that a software implementation of a particular function is invariably equivalent to a 

hardware implementation of the same function. See 194 

F.3d at 1269–71. The District Court therefore did not err 

in declining to rely upon the quoted passage from Overhead Door. 

2. The Insubstantial Differences Test

Under the insubstantial differences test, “an equivalent results from an insubstantial change which adds 

nothing of significance to the structure, material[,] or acts 

disclosed in the” relevant patent. Valmont Indus., Inc. v. 

Reinke Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 1993). 

The District Court found substantial differences between 

the offsetting structure in the 3DS and in the “offset 

presetting means” limitation in claim 1 of the ’664 patent. 

The District Court found that “the hardware[-]based 

timing mechanism of the ’664 patent cannot provide the 

same functionality as the more flexible software-based 

transformation[s] . . . in the 3DS, which can [a]ffect” 

several different image transformations at the same time. 

Tomita II, 182 F. Supp. 3d at 117 (citations omitted). The 

District Court also found that the 3DS uses transformations to render new images, effectively changing the 

location of all the images’ pixels along both the horizontal 

and vertical axes of a grid, whereas the ’664 patent only 

offsets a single image along the horizontal axis. See id.

Tomita does not contest the District Court’s factual 

findings; instead, it avers that the District Court “erred as 

a matter of law in relying on the 3DS’s camera calibration 

feature” in its analysis, “which is unrelated to the funcCase: 16-2015 Document: 55-2 Page: 11 Filed: 03/17/2017
12 TOMITA TECHS. USA, LLC v. NINTENDO CO. 

tion of the offset presetting means.” Appellants’ Br. 49. 

Tomita predicates its argument on the District Court’s 

statement that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art 

would consider the[] differences to add something of 

significance to the ’664 patent’s offsetting structure, 

including because they allow the 3DS to correct for camera 

calibration.” Tomita II, 182 F. Supp. 3d at 117 (emphasis 

added) (citation omitted). 

The District Court’s opinion belies Tomita’s argument. 

None of the District Court’s substantial differences findings rely upon camera calibration; instead, those findings 

rely upon differences in software and hardware, as well as 

image transformations. See id. Although the District 

Court found that these differences result in significant 

additions to the 3DS, like camera calibration, that does 

not mean that the District Court equated the results of 

the substantial differences with the differences themselves. Even if the District Court improperly considered 

camera calibration, it nonetheless found that the structure that performs offsetting in the 3DS is substantially 

different from the structure in the disputed limitation, see 

id., and Tomita has not presented any evidence showing

why these structures are not substantially different, see 

generally Appellants’ Br.

Tomita also avers that the District Court “erred as a 

matter of law in failing to evaluate equivalence for the 

3DS’s mode of operation in which images are displayed 

from an SD card” because “a product that infringes a 

patent only part of the time, or in certain modes of operation, is still infringing.” Id. at 51 (citation omitted). 

According to Tomita, the District Court “evaluated equivalence only for the 3DS’s mode of operation in which it 

performs” multiple image transformations at the same 

time and corrects for camera calibration. Id. at 51–52. 

Even if Tomita is correct that the District Court evaluated 

equivalence only for one 3DS mode of operation, that does 

not change the fact that the District Court found several 

Case: 16-2015 Document: 55-2 Page: 12 Filed: 03/17/2017
TOMITA TECHS. USA, LLC v. NINTENDO CO. 13

other substantial differences between the ’664 patent and 

the 3DS, see Tomita II, 182 F. Supp. 3d at 116–18, such 

that the District Court properly found no infringement.

3. Tomita’s Remaining Arguments Fail

Tomita raises additional arguments that we find unpersuasive. Tomita alleges that the District Court “improperly merge[d]” the function-way-result and 

insubstantial differences tests. Appellants’ Br. 45. Tomita bases its argument on the District Court’s statement 

that “if two structures known to perform the same function accomplish it significantly differently, they are not 

interchangeable.” Id. at 46–47 (quoting Tomita II, 182 F. 

Supp. 3d at 117 (emphasis added)). 

The District Court’s opinion does not support Tomita’s 

argument. The quoted passage appears in the portion of 

the District Court’s opinion analyzing the results of the 

insubstantial differences test and, in particular, addressing the known interchangeability of certain techniques. 

Tomita II, 182 F. Supp. 3d at 117. The District Court 

neither stated that a “significantly differently” test controlled its inquiry, nor repeated “significantly differently” 

in its analysis. See id. at 113–18. “We will not find legal 

error based upon an isolated statement stripped from its 

context.” VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc., 665 F. App’x 880, 886 

(Fed. Cir. 2016).

To the extent that Tomita suggests that the District 

Court was required to examine evidence on known interchangeability, see Appellants’ Br. 44–49, that position has 

no support in the law. The Supreme Court has stated 

that

the particular linguistic framework used is less 

important than whether the test is probative of 

the essential inquiry: Does the accused product or 

process contain elements identical or equivalent to 

each claimed element of the patented invention? 

Case: 16-2015 Document: 55-2 Page: 13 Filed: 03/17/2017
14 TOMITA TECHS. USA, LLC v. NINTENDO CO. 

Different linguistic frameworks may be more suitable to different cases, depending on their particular facts. A focus on individual elements and a 

special vigilance against allowing the concept of 

equivalence to eliminate completely any such elements should reduce considerably the imprecision 

of whatever language is used. An analysis of the 

role played by each element in the context of the 

specific patent claim will thus inform the inquiry 

as to whether a substitute element matches the 

function, way, and result of the claimed element, 

or whether the substitute element plays a role 

substantially different from the claimed element.

Warner-Jenkinson, 520 U.S. at 40. The District Court

conducted a comprehensive comparison of the “offsetting” 

structures in the 3DS and the ’664 patent and, thus, 

examined equivalency at a level that comports with what 

precedent demands. See Tomita II, 182 F. Supp. 3d at 

117. Therefore, the District Court properly concluded 

that the 3DS does not infringe claim 1 of the ’664 patent. 

C. The Court Need Not Address Whether the ’664 Patent 

and the 3DS Possess Equivalent “Displaying” Structures

Tomita challenges several aspects of the District 

Court’s finding that the 3DS and the disputed limitation 

of the ’664 patent do not possess equivalent displaying 

structures. See Appellants’ Br. 53–64. However, we need 

not address these arguments because Tomita has failed to 

demonstrate that the 3DS and the disputed limitation 

possess equivalent offsetting structures, and a party will 

prevail on infringement only if it establishes the literal 

“presence of each and every claim element or its equivalent” in the accused product. Star Sci., 655 F.3d at 1378 

(emphasis added) (citation omitted).

Case: 16-2015 Document: 55-2 Page: 14 Filed: 03/17/2017
TOMITA TECHS. USA, LLC v. NINTENDO CO. 15

CONCLUSION

We have considered Tomita’s remaining arguments 

and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, the final judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District

of New York is

AFFIRMED

Case: 16-2015 Document: 55-2 Page: 15 Filed: 03/17/2017