Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-00888/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-00888-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

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 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

QUINTAL RESEARCH GROUP, INC.

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

NINTENDO OF AMERICA, INC. and

NINTENDO COMPANY LTD., 

 Defendants. 

Case No: C 13-00888 SBA

ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF 

NONINFRINGEMENT

Docket 45 

Quintal Research Group, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Quintal”), the owner of United States 

Patent No. 7,425,944 (“‘944 Patent”), brings the instant patent infringement action against 

Defendants Nintendo of America, Inc., and Nintendo Company Ltd. (collectively 

“Defendants” or “Nintendo”). Quintal alleges that certain of Nintendo’s Game Boy 

handheld gaming devices infringe the ‘944 Patent, inter alia, with respect to the location of 

their thumb-activated controls. The Court has jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1338(a). 

The parties are presently before the Court on Nintendo’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment of Noninfringement. Having read and considered the papers filed in connection 

with this matter and being fully informed, the Court hereby GRANTS Nintendo’s motion 

for the reasons set forth below. The Court, in its discretion, finds this matter suitable for 

resolution without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 

Case 4:13-cv-00888-SBA Document 82 Filed 07/17/15 Page 1 of 25
- 2 - 

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 

I. BACKGROUND 

A. SUMMARY OF THE ‘944 PATENT

1. Overview 

Quintal is the owner of the ’944 Patent, entitled “Computerized Information 

Retrieval System,” which was assigned from its inventor and patent attorney, Richard 

Peterson. The Abstract describes the invention as “a portable handheld communication 

device for rapid retrieval of computerized information[.]” First Am. Compl. (“FAC”), 

Ex. 1 (“‘944 Patent”), Dkt. 13-1. The communication device or “microdeck” is designed to 

“interconnect with network computer consoles or communication systems for access to a 

larger data net” and to “optimize data input and output without the use of a keyboard,” Id., 

col. 3 ll. 43-46, col. 5 ll. 7-9 & 20-25, col. 6 ll. 18-23. 

The microdeck is the size of a deck of cards, “having a generally rectangular shape 

with a display screen [152] on one side that has a frame with ergonomic placement of 

finger controls [160] including a pair of thumb controls on either side of the screen [166] 

with a pair of finger controls on the top of the display with a least one of the finger controls 

being a cursor or pointer control.” ‘944 Patent, Abstract. In addition, there are a pair of 

thumb select buttons [162/164] on the underside of the microdeck that perform the same 

function as the thumb controls on the face of the device. As shown below in Fig. 19A 

Case 4:13-cv-00888-SBA Document 82 Filed 07/17/15 Page 2 of 25
- 3 - 

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 

(annotated) to the ‘944 Patent, the controls, buttons and switches on the left and right side 

of the centerline of the display are mirror images of one another. 

The layout of the microdeck is intended “to maximize the area of the display screen” 

through the “ergonomic arrangement of finger controls around the perimeter of the 

housing.” Id., col. 5, ll. 50-53; col. 6 ll. 18-23. The specification teaches that “[t]he 

perimeter controls are symmetrically arranged on each side of the center line of the display 

screen and the principal controls are operated either redundantly or in tandem.” Id. col. 6 ll. 

18-23. The finger controls [160] are described as a “pair of spaced cursor controls which 

control a single cursor (or pointer) . . . when in redundant mode, and a pair of cursors, each 

independently controllable when operated 

in tandem mode.” Id., col. 6 ll. 24-28. A 

top view of the microdeck showing the two 

cursor controls is shown in Fig. 20 

(annotated) to the ‘944 Patent. 

In conjunction with the top-mounted cursor controls, the specification calls for a pair 

of thumb-controlled “select buttons” [162/164] on the underside of the microdeck, as 

shown in Fig. 21 (annotated) to the ‘944 Patent. The select buttons “correspond to the A 

and B mouse select buttons commonly used in a conventional mouse control.” Id., col. 6 ll. 

37-42. For the convenience of the user, the 

select buttons are replicated on the face of 

the microdeck as “redundant” thumboperated controls [166] located on each side 

of the display screen. Id., col. 6 ll. 49-52. 

These counterparts—referred to as “selection switches”—permit the user to perform the 

same function as the select buttons by using his thumb to operate rocker (i.e., toggle) 

switches. Id., col. 6 ll. 50-55. The forward rocker contact corresponds to the A mouse 

select button and the backward rocker contact corresponds to the B mouse select button. 

Id., col. 6 ll. 55-59. The thumb controls must operate “both in a redundant mode and in a 

Case 4:13-cv-00888-SBA Document 82 Filed 07/17/15 Page 3 of 25
- 4 - 

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 

tandem mode.” Id., col. 6 ll. 39-43. The relationship between the thumb select buttons on 

the underside of the microdeck and their corresponding thumb selection switches on the 

face of the device is shown in Figs. 19A and 21 (annotated and modified), as depicted 

below. 

2. Patent Claims 

The ’944 Patent has two independent claims—Claims 1 and 9—both of which are at 

issue in this motion. Claim 1 recites: 

1. A handheld microdeck having input controls for game 

playing and data management comprising: 

 a rectangular display screen; 

 a perimeter housing wherein the rectangular display 

screen is mounted in the perimeter housing, the 

perimeter housing having a back panel wherein a pocketsize unit is formed having a front with the display screen, 

Case 4:13-cv-00888-SBA Document 82 Filed 07/17/15 Page 4 of 25
- 5 - 

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 back with the back panel, a top, a bottom and two sides 

connecting the top and bottom; and, 

a plurality of ergonomic manual controls for operating 

the microdeck wherein the manual controls are mounted 

on the perimeter housing with two spaced finger controls 

mounted on the top of the pocket-size unit and two 

spaced thumb controls mounted on the front of the 

pocket-size unit on each side of the screen wherein at 

least one of the manual controls is a cursor control, 

wherein the two spaced finger controls and two spaced 

thumb controls are symmetrically arranged on each 

side of the display screen. 

Id., col. 18 ll. 10-28 (emphasis added). Claim 9 is identical to Claim 1, but specifies that at 

least one of the manual controls is “a pointer,” rather than a “cursor control.” Id., col. 18 ll. 

49-67. Both claims include the “symmetrically arranged” limitation, which lies at the 

center of the instant controversy. 

B. PROSECUTION HISTORY

The ‘944 Patent descends from U.S. Patent No. 5,452,468 (“‘468 Patent”), filed on 

July 31, 1991. See Martinez Decl., Ex. 1 (“‘468 Patent”), col. 1 ll. 7-8, Dkt. 50-1. The 

preferred embodiment of the invention includes a “portable, personal deck” that is a 

“miniature operational personal computer.” Id., col. 5 ll. 5, 27-26. 

On February 4, 1994, the inventor, Richard Peterson, filed for a continuation-in-part 

to the ‘468 Patent, which was granted as U.S. Patent No. 6,643,656 (“‘656 Patent”). The 

‘656 Patent added the embodiment of a “deck,” that, unlike the parent ‘468 Patent, specifies 

the use of finger controls. This embodiment also appears in the ‘944 Patent—the patent-insuit. 

On July 1, 2005, the inventor filed an application for the ‘944 Patent. See U.S. 

Patent Appl. No. 11/173,330. During the patent prosecution process, the patent examiner 

added the “symmetrically arranged” limitation, ostensibly due to concerns regarding its 

patentability based on the prior art. Specifically, on June 8, 2008, the patent examiner 

conducted a telephone interview with the inventor in connection with his submission for a 

Case 4:13-cv-00888-SBA Document 82 Filed 07/17/15 Page 5 of 25
- 6 - 

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 

terminal disclaimer.1 Hamilton Decl., Ex. B (‘944 Patent File History, June 17, 2008, 

Notice of Allowance), Dkt. 45-7. During their conversation, the inventor authorized the 

examiner to amend Claims 1 and 9 by adding the limitation, “wherein the two spaced finger 

controls and two spaced thumb controls are symmetrically arranged on each side on the 

display screen.” Id. at 6 (emphasis added). 

On June 17, 2008, the examiner, upon obtaining the inventor’s consent to his 

proposed addition of the “symmetrically arranged” limitation, issued a Notice of 

Allowance, indicating the intent of the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) to issue the 

patent and allow Claims 1 through 16. Id. at 1. In the section entitled “Allowable Subject 

Matter,” the examiner stated that “Claims 1-16 are allowed since key features of the 

claimed invention are not taught or fairly suggested by prior art.” Id. at 7. The examiner 

explained that the “closest prior art Matthews (5,432,510) teaches [a] data input device 

[that] includes an ergonomic arrangement of keys on [a] casing”—but that Matthews, 

whether considered individually or in combination of other prior art, did not read on the 

specified limitations, as amended by the examiner. Id. 

On July 31, 2008, the inventor submitted Amendment After Allowance Under 37 

C.F.R. § 1.312 (“Amendment After Allowance”) to the PTO to address alleged errors by 

the patent examiner in the Notice of Allowance. Hamilton Decl., Ex. C, Dkt. 45-8 at 1-2. 

The claim language, as modified by the examiner, read as follows: “ 

[W]herein the two finger spaced controls and two spaced thumb 

controls are symmetrically arranged on each side on the display 

screen--. 

Id. at 2 (emphasis added). The inventor proposed amending the above claim language to 

instead state as follows (as denoted by the underline and strikeout): 

 1 A patent term is limited to twenty years. 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2). A terminal 

disclaimer is a statement that the patentee can make to limit the patent term in order to 

allow a subsequent patent to issue based on essentially the same subject matter as an earlier 

patent. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 804.02. The terminal disclaimer 

means that the patentee agrees that the second patent will expire on the same date as the 

prior patent, thereby avoiding double-patenting rejection. Id. All of the patents in the 

family originating with the ‘468 Patent, including the ‘944 Patent, were subject to an 

automatic terminal disclaimer and expired on July 31, 2011. 

Case 4:13-cv-00888-SBA Document 82 Filed 07/17/15 Page 6 of 25
- 7 - 

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 

[W]herein the two finger spaced controls and two spaced thumb 

controls are symmetrically arranged on each side of the 

centerline of on the display screen--. 

Id. (alterations in orig.). The inventor claimed that the examiner’s use of “on” as opposed 

to “in” was a “transcription error,” as evidenced by the fact that the examiner properly used 

“of” elsewhere in the Notice of Allowance. Id. at 5. With regard to the addition “of the 

centerline,” the inventor stated: 

To clarify what was intended and understood by Applicant and 

Examiner, Applicant corrects the error and adds the clarifying 

term, “of the centerline.” This conforms the claim terminology 

to the specification language, page 13, lines 14-16, where it is 

stated, “The perimeter controls are symmetrically arranged on 

each side of the centerline of the display screen . . .” This also 

more accurately describes the locational symmetry of the two 

spaced finger controls mounted on the top of the unit as shown 

in the drawings. 

Id. On September 16, 2008, the PTO issued the ‘944 Patent, with Claims 1 and 9 reciting 

the limitation, “wherein the two finger spaced controls and two spaced thumb controls are 

symmetrically arranged on each side of the display screen.” ‘944 Patent, col. 18 ll. 26-28. 

The examiner apparently did not add the “of the centerline” to the claim language of the 

patent, as the inventor had requested. 

C. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Quintal commenced the instant action in this Court against Nintendo on February 

27, 2013. Dkt. 1. On May 8, 2013, Quintal filed a First Amended Complaint, which 

alleges a single claim for patent infringement, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. Dkt. 13. In 

particular, Quintal claims that Nintendo’s “Game Boy Advance” and “Game Boy Dual 

Screen,” as depicted below, infringe independent Claims 1 and 9 and dependent claims 2 

and 10 of the ‘944 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. FAC ¶¶ 12-

17. 

// 

// 

// 

Case 4:13-cv-00888-SBA Document 82 Filed 07/17/15 Page 7 of 25
- 8 - 

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 

Game Boy Advance Game Boy Dual Screen

Id. ¶ 12. Quintal also avers that Nintendo induced its customers to infringe the patent-insuit. Id. ¶ 18. 

Nintendo now moves for summary judgment of noninfringement. In its motion, 

Nintendo argues that the ordinary meaning of “symmetrically arranged” is “mirror image,” 

such that the two thumb controls specified in Claims 1 and 9 must correspond in size, 

shape, and position on each side of the display screen of the handheld deck.2

 Quintal 

counters that “symmetrically arranged” does not mean “mirror image,” and only requires 

that the buttons on the device be symmetrical from a “locational” standpoint—not that the 

identical buttons be placed in the exact same position on either side of the display screen. 

Alternatively, Nintendo contends that even under Quintal’s construction, Quintal cannot 

show that Nintendo’s accused devices have one thumb control on one side of the display 

screen that is symmetrical to a thumb control on the other, as required by the ‘944 Patent. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, “summary judgment is appropriate where 

there ‘is no genuine issue as to any material fact’ and the moving party is ‘entitled to a 

judgment as a matter of law.’” Alabama v. North Carolina, 560 U.S. 330, 344 (2010) 

(quoting Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56(c)) (citing cases). “The burden of establishing the 

nonexistence of a ‘genuine issue’ is on the party moving for summary judgment.” Celotex 

 2 Although the ‘944 Patent refers to two finger controls and two thumb controls, 

Nintendo’s motion focuses on the lack of two “symmetrically arranged” thumb controls as 

the basis for noninfringement. 

Case 4:13-cv-00888-SBA Document 82 Filed 07/17/15 Page 8 of 25
- 9 - 

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 

Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 330 (1986). The movant must inform the district court “of 

the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of ‘the pleadings, depositions, 

answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,’ 

which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Id. 

Where the moving party meets its initial burden, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to designate specific facts demonstrating the existence of a genuine issue of 

material fact. Id. at 324. “This burden is not a light one. The non-moving party must show 

more than the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence.” In re Oracle Corp. Secs. Litig., 

627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 

252 (1986)). An issue is “genuine” only if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable fact 

finder to find for the non-moving party. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 322-23. All reasonable 

inferences are to be drawn in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought. 

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). 

III. DISCUSSION 

“A determination of patent infringement consists of two steps: (1) the court must 

first interpret the claim, and (2) it must then compare the properly construed claims to the 

allegedly infringing device.” Playtex Prods. , Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 400 F.3d 901, 

905-906 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The Court discusses each issue, in turn. 

A. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

Claim construction presents a question of law. See Markman v. Westview 

Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372 (1996). Claim terms are generally given their ordinary 

and customary meaning, which “is 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 v. AWH Corp., 

415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In construing a disputed claim term, 

courts first look to the patent’s intrinsic evidence, which consists of its claim language, 

specification, and prosecution history. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 

2120, 2127 (2014). The specification is the “single best guide” for construing disputed 

claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. A court also may appropriately consult the 

Case 4:13-cv-00888-SBA Document 82 Filed 07/17/15 Page 9 of 25
- 10 - 

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 

description of the preferred embodiment, Pandrol USA, LP v. Airboss Ry. Prods., Inc., 320 

F.3d 1354, 1363 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citations omitted), but “must not to import limitations 

into the claims from the specification,” Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 595 F.3d 

1340, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 

“In most situations, an analysis of the intrinsic evidence alone will resolve any 

ambiguity in a disputed claim term. In such circumstances, it is improper to rely on 

extrinsic evidence.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 

1996). Extrinsic evidence may thus be considered only if necessary to assist the court in 

determining the meaning or scope of technical claim terms. Id. Extrinsic evidence 

“consists of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and 

inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. Courts 

should not rely on extrinsic evidence in claim construction to contradict the meaning of 

claims that can be discerned from examination of the claims, the written description, and 

the prosecution history. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 

1308 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583). 

1. Intrinsic Evidence 

Claims 1 and 9 both specify the use of “multiple ergonomic manual controls,” 

consisting of “two spaced finger controls and two spaced thumb controls [that] are 

symmetrically arranged on each side of the display screen.” ‘944 Patent, col. 18 ll. 26-28. 

Although “symmetrically arranged” is not defined in the claims, the specification explains 

that the two thumb controls (i.e., selection switches) are to correspond and function 

identically to the thumb controls located on the underside of the deck (i.e., select buttons). 

‘944 Patent, col. 6 ll. 36-42, 49-59. Each thumb control is a rocker switch intended to 

correlate to the A and B mouse buttons, which must operate “both in a redundant mode and 

in a tandem mode.” Id., col. 6 ll. 39-43. Because the ‘944 Patent explicitly teaches the use 

of only two thumb controls on the face of the deck and requires that the thumb control on 

one side of the display must be redundant of control on the other side, one skilled in the art, 

Case 4:13-cv-00888-SBA Document 82 Filed 07/17/15 Page 10 of 25
- 11 - 

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 

reading the specification, would understand that “symmetrically arranged” thumb controls 

means that the controls are to be mirror images of one another. 

The above conclusion is further supported by the depiction of the preferred 

embodiment in Fig. 19A, which shows that the thumb controls are identical in size, shape 

and location on either side of the display 

screen. Quintal contends that by pointing to 

Fig. 19A of the ‘944 patent to support its 

argument, Nintendo is impermissibly 

attempting to import limitation from the 

preferred embodiment into the claims. Pl.’s 

Opp’n, Dkt. 49 at 19-20. The Court 

disagrees. As discussed above, the specification’s statements regarding the purpose and 

intent of the two thumb controls support the conclusion that Claims 1 and 9 teaches that 

each thumb control on either side of the display must mirror one another. Fig. 19A merely 

confirms this. 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Quintal insists that “symmetrically arranged” only 

requires symmetry in the location of the controls. Pl.’s Opp’n, Dkt. 49 at 6. While this 

interpretation may have some facial appeal, it is predicated solely on extrinsic evidence. 

The Federal Circuit has made clear that a proposed claim construction that is untethered to 

the patent’s claims, specification and other intrinsic evidence, is untenable. See Raylon, 

LLC v. Complus Data Innovations, Inc., 700 F.3d 1361, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (holding that 

a proposed claim construction that was unsupported by intrinsic evidence was frivolous and 

warranted Rule 11 sanctions); Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp., 401 F.3d 1313, 1319 

(Fed. Cir. 2005) (“We cannot look at the ordinary meaning of the term . . . in a vacuum. 

Rather, we must look at the ordinary meaning in the context of the written description and 

the prosecution history.”); see also Hologic, Inc. v. SenoRx, Inc., 639 F.3d 1329, 1338 

(Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the district court properly referred the patent specification in 

Case 4:13-cv-00888-SBA Document 82 Filed 07/17/15 Page 11 of 25
- 12 - 

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 

construing the disputed claim). For these reasons, the Court finds Quintal’s proposed 

construction of “symmetrically arranged” is untenable.3

2. Extrinsic Evidence 

Where, as here, the intrinsic evidence supports a proposed construction of a disputed 

claim term, there is no need to resort to extrinsic evidence. Interval Licensing LLC v. 

AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 2014). But even if the consideration of extrinsic 

evidence were necessary, the Court finds that such evidence supports Nintendo’s 

construction of “symmetrically arranged.” 

a) Dictionaries 

The Federal Circuit has “made clear that dictionaries and treatises can often be 

useful in claim construction, particularly insofar as they help the court to better understand 

the underlying technology and the way in which one of skill in the art might use the claim 

terms.” Starhome GmbH v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 743 F.3d 849, 856 (Fed. Cir. 2014) 

(internal quotations omitted). In doing so, the court must be careful not to consult a 

definition that contradicts “any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent 

documents.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1322-23. In addition, “[t]he court must ensure that any 

reliance on dictionaries accords with the intrinsic evidence: the claims themselves, the 

specification, and the prosecution history.” Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Int’l, Inc., 

423 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 

Dictionaries published during the relevant time period consistently define 

“symmetry” to mean “correspondence in size, shape, and position of parts that are on 

opposite sides of a dividing line or center.” Hamilton Decl., Ex. D, Dkt. 45-9 (Webster’s 

Illustrated Dictionary 519 (2d ed. 1994)); see also id. Ex. E (Random House Webster’s 

Dictionary 669 (1993), defining “symmetry” as “correspondence in size, form, and 

arrangement of parts on opposite sides of a plane, line, or point”); id. (Webster’s Third New 

 3 Nintendo’s motion briefly cites the ‘468 Patent’s use of the term “symmetrically 

arranged” in relation to computer memory architecture to support its construction of that 

term in the context of the ‘944 Patent. The Court finds unnecessary to reach this contention 

in light of the claim language and specification. 

Case 4:13-cv-00888-SBA Document 82 Filed 07/17/15 Page 12 of 25
- 13 - 

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 

International Dictionary 2317 (1993), defining “symmetry” as “the property of being 

symmetrical; esp: correspondence in size, shape, and relative position of parts that are on 

opposite sides of a dividing line or median plane or that are distributed about a center or 

axis.”); id. (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 1196 (1991), defining “symmetry” 

as “the property of being symmetrical; esp: correspondence in size, shape, and relative 

position of parts on opposite sides of a dividing line or median plane or about a center or 

axis.”); id. (American Heritage Dictionary 1231 (3d ed. 1991), defining “symmetry” as “a 

relationship of characteristic correspondence, equivalence, or identity among constituents 

of a system or between different systems” or “correspondence of form and arrangement of 

parts on opposite sides of a boundary, such as a plane or line or around a point or axis.”). 

Quintal does not dispute that dictionaries may be consulted to construe claim terms 

or that the definitions cited by Nintendo support a “mirror image” construction. However, 

Quintal asserts that Nintendo is relying “solely” on them for its proposed claim 

construction, has “cherry-picked” its definitions, and that its analysis is “divorced from the 

intrinsic evidence.” Pl.’s Opp’n, Dkt. 49 at 18. This contention lacks merit. As discussed 

above, the principal basis for Nintendo’s proposed construction is the language of the 

claims and specification. Despite Quintal’s assertions to the contrary, Nintendo does not 

rely on dictionaries in isolation, but merely cites them to confirm the ordinary meaning of 

the disputed claim language. Quintal’s ancillary assertion that Nintendo “cherry-picked” its 

definitions is unfounded, as Nintendo identified multiple dictionaries, all of which 

consistently support the conclusion that the plain meaning of “symmetrically arranged” 

incorporates correspondence in size, shape, and position on each side of a dividing line — 

exactly as the specification does. 

Quintal cites Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary’s definition of 

“symmetrical” which defines the term as “capable of division by a longitudinal plane into 

similar halves” or “having the same number of members in each whorl of floral leaves.” 

Dkt. 49 at 19 (citing Martinez Decl. Ex. 7, Dkt. 51-1 (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate 

Dictionary 10th ed. (1993)). Yet, in the same dictionary, the term “symmetry” is defined as 

Case 4:13-cv-00888-SBA Document 82 Filed 07/17/15 Page 13 of 25
- 14 - 

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 

“the property of being symmetrical, esp; correspondence in size, shape and relative position 

of parts on opposite sides of a dividing or median plane or about a center of axis.” Id. In 

any event, Quintal’s proffered dictionary definitions are unhelpful because no nexus has 

been established between those definitions and the intrinsic evidence. Free Motion Fitness, 

423 F.3d at 1348. 4 

b) Nintendo’s Patent Applications 

Next, Quintal asserts that Nintendo’s own patent applications filed in 2010 and 2011 

demonstrate that a person ordinarily skilled in the art would construe “symmetrically 

arranged” as referring only to the location of the controls—and not require that the controls 

also be the same size and shape. Pl.’s Opp’n, Dkt. 49 at 13-15. As noted, “the ordinary 

and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person 

of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective 

filing date of the patent application.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13. In this case, the patent 

applications cited by Quintal were filed more than nine years after the effective date of the 

‘944 Patent.5

 As such, they have no bearing on what a person of ordinary skill would have 

understood at the time of the invention. 

Even if they were germane, the Nintendo patent applications are distinguishable. 

The Nintendo applications disclose the placement of groups of buttons that are symmetrical 

with respect to another component. See U.S. Patent App. No. (“App. No.”) 13/049,581, 

Dkt. # 50-3 ¶ [0078] (four buttons are “bilaterally symmetrical in position” with respect to 

analog stick); App. No. 13/153,784, Dkt. 52-7 at ¶ [0094] (same); App. No. 13/238,535, 

Dkt. 50-4 ¶ [0095] (four buttons and analog stick are “positioned so as to be symmetrical”); 

 4 Quintal also argues that Nintendo’s proposed construction relates to 

“symmetrically” only, and ignores the term “arranged.” Pl.’s Opp’n, Dkt. 49 at 7, 19. But 

the dictionary definition of “arranged” cited by Quintal demonstrates that “arranged” refers 

to the “relationship” between the two thumb controls. Id. at 19. “Symmetrically” indicates 

how the thumb controls are related to one another. 

5 The ‘944 Patent’s effective date is based on that of the parent patent. See HillRom Services, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“the patents-insuit claim priority to an application filed in 1993 and, a proper construction of the claims 

must be tethered to that date.”). 

Case 4:13-cv-00888-SBA Document 82 Filed 07/17/15 Page 14 of 25
- 15 - 

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 

App. No. 12/980,620, Dkt. 50-5 at ¶ [0087] (four buttons and analog stick are “placed 

symmetrically to each other”). In contrast, the ’944 Patent does not claim a group of 

symmetrically arranged buttons or controls. Instead, the ’944 Patent specifically claims 

“two spaced thumb controls [that] are symmetrically arranged on each side of the display 

screen.” 

Quintal also cites a Nintendo patent 

filing in 1991, U.S. Patent No. 5,207,426 

(‘426 Patent”), for a handheld game 

controller. Pl.’s Opp’n, Dkt. 49 at 15. 

According to Quintal, this patent is 

significant because it purportedly shows that 

Nintendo allegedly “treats the four button 

cluster singularly as one unit of four 

buttons. . . .” Dkt. 49 at 14-15 (emphasis in orig.). Not so. Neither the claims nor 

specification of the ‘426 Patent recites this—nor do they make any mention of the term 

“symmetrically.” As such, Quintal is hard pressed to claim that the ‘426 Patent supports 

the notion that “symmetrically” as used in the ‘944 Patent only refers to the location of the 

buttons, as opposed to their size, shape and location. 

As an ancillary matter, Quintal argues that Nintendo should be judicially estopped 

from claiming that “symmetrically arranged” means the size, shape and location of controls 

on the ground that Nintendo purportedly took the opposite position during the prosecution 

of its own patents. Dkt. 49 at 28. Judicial estoppel is a discretionary doctrine that may be 

applied upon consideration of the following factors: (1) whether the party’s new assertion 

is clearly inconsistent with its earlier position; (2) whether the party was successful in 

persuading the earlier court to follow his first position, such that the finding of the earlier 

court would now be incorrect and one court or the other appears to be misled in a finding; 

and (3) whether the party asserting inconsistent positions would derive an unfair advantage 

or impose an unfair detriment if not estopped. New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 

Case 4:13-cv-00888-SBA Document 82 Filed 07/17/15 Page 15 of 25
- 16 - 

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 

748 (2001). Applying this test, the Court, in its discretion, finds that judicial estoppel is not 

warranted. First, Nintendo’s position in this litigation is not inconsistent with the 

prosecution of its patents. Second, the text from the patent specifications quoted by Quintal 

do not show that Nintendo took any “position” or otherwise persuaded the PTO to interpret 

any particular claim terms in any particular manner. Finally, Quintal has made no showing 

that Nintendo gained any unfair advantage by having taken any particular position during 

the patent prosecution process. 

Quintal also cites a non-Nintendo patent assigned to Konami Co., Ltd., i.e., U.S. 

Patent No. 5,137,277 (“Konami Patent”), filed on January 26, 1990, for a Hand Held Video 

Game With Simulated Air Battle. Martinez Decl. Ex. 12, Dkt. 52-4. In particular, Quintal 

points to language in the patent specification that “buttons 34a and 34b may optionally be 

symmetrically located about the longitudinal center line of the casing 22, as shown.” 

Konami Patent, col. 3, ll. 1-4. However, the term “symmetrically located” does not appear 

in the patent claim. Accordingly, the fact that 

“symmetrically located” is mentioned in the 

specification is ultimately immaterial to the scope of the 

patent. Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water 

Filtration Sys., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 

(“the claims of a patent define the invention to which 

the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.”). In any 

event, the graphical depiction of the preferred 

embodiment shows that the “symmetrically located” 

buttons are indeed mirror images of each other, which 

supports Nintendo’s position in this action. 

c) Quintal’s Expert Declaration 

Finally, Quintal relies on the declaration of its expert, John Wharton (“Wharton”), to 

support its contention that “symmetrically arranged” only refers to positional symmetry. 

Extrinsic evidence in the form of expert testimony can be useful in a variety of areas, 

Case 4:13-cv-00888-SBA Document 82 Filed 07/17/15 Page 16 of 25
- 17 - 

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 

including whether a “particular term in the patent or the prior art has a particular meaning 

in the pertinent field.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318. Conversely, “conclusory, unsupported 

assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim term are not useful to a court.” Id. 

Similarly, a court should discount any expert testimony “that is clearly at odds with the 

claim construction mandated by the claims themselves, the written description, and the 

prosecution history, in other words, with the written record of the patent.” Key Pharm. v. 

Hercon Lab. Corp., 161 F.3d 709, 716 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Trilogy Comm’cn, Inc. v. 

Times Fiber Comm’cn, Inc., 109 F.3d 739, 744 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“When, as here, the 

district court has concluded that the patent specification and the prosecution history 

adequately elucidate the proper meaning of the claims, expert testimony is not necessary 

and certainly not crucial.”). 

In his declaration, Wharton states: “There is no value in having ‘mirror image’ 

symmetry of individual buttons such that they are symmetrical in size, shape, and location, 

and as one skilled in the art, it is my opinion that the term, [sic] symmetrically arranged on 

each side of the center line of the display screen refers to the general locations of the 

controls.” Wharton Decl. ¶ 15, Dkt. 49-1. This opinion is entirely conclusory and contrary 

to the intrinsic evidence. See Karlin Tech., Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc., 177 F.3d 968, 

971 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“The court may receive extrinsic evidence to educate itself about the 

invention and the relevant technology, but the court may not use extrinsic evidence to 

arrive at a claim construction that is clearly at odds with the construction mandated by the 

intrinsic evidence”). Most notably, Wharton completely fails to address the ’944 Patent’s 

claim language, specification, or prosecution history.6

 The Court therefore affords little 

weight to Wharton’s declaration regarding the meaning of “symmetrically arranged.” 

 6 The Court disagrees with the Wharton’s suggestion that there is “no value” in 

having each thumb control button be the mirror image of the other. The specification 

makes clear that the microdeck is intended to be a handheld device operated with both 

hands of the user—with the top perimeter controls operated by the user’s fingers, and the 

bottom and face-mounted controls operated by the user’s thumbs. The specification 

indicates that the thumb controls must be operable in both redundant and tandem modes. 

Given that the left and right thumb controls must operate in that manner, as well as be 

ergonomic, it makes logical sense that they are mirror images of one another. 

Case 4:13-cv-00888-SBA Document 82 Filed 07/17/15 Page 17 of 25
- 18 - 

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 

d) Conclusion 

In sum, the Court finds that the intrinsic evidence and extrinsic evidence support the 

conclusion that the limitation in Claims 1 and 9 that “two spaced thumb controls are 

symmetrically arranged on each side of the center line of the display screen” means “two 

spaced thumb controls corresponding in size, shape and position on each side of the 

centerline of the display screen.” The Court now turns to the second part of its analysis, 

which addresses whether the accused devices, i.e., the Game Boy Advance and the Game 

Boy Micro, infringe those claims. 

B. INFRINGEMENT ANALYSIS

Patent infringement may be proven by direct or literal infringement, or under the 

doctrine of equivalents. Gen. Elec. Co. v. Int’l Trade Com’n, 670 F.3d 1206, 1214 (Fed. 

Cir. 2012). Quintal alleges both theories of patent infringement, which are addressed 

below. 

1. Direct Infringement 

“Direct infringement requires proof by preponderant evidence that the 

defendant . . . uses (if a product claim) each element of a claim, either literally or under the 

doctrine of equivalents.” Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese & Powder Sys., Inc., 

725 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013). A claim is “literally infringed” if each properly 

construed claim element directly reads on the accused product or process. Jeneric/Pentron 

Inc. v. Dillon Co., 205 F.3d 1377, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2000). If any claim limitation is absent 

from the accused device, there is no literal infringement as a matter of law. Amgen Inc. v. 

F. Hoffman-LA Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “[A] literal 

infringement issue is properly decided upon summary judgment when no genuine issue of 

material fact exists, in particular, when no reasonable jury could find that every limitation 

recited in the properly construed claim either is or is not found in the accused device.” Bai 

v. L & L Wings, Inc., 160 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 

The Court has construed the claim limitation “two spaced thumb controls are 

symmetrically arranged on each side of the center line of the display screen” to mean “two 

Case 4:13-cv-00888-SBA Document 82 Filed 07/17/15 Page 18 of 25
- 19 - 

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 

spaced thumb controls corresponding in size, shape and position on each side of the 

centerline of the display screen.” As shown in the depictions of the Game Boy Advance, 

Game Boy Micro and Game Boy DS (shown below), each device contains a cross-shaped 

button mounted on the left side of the centerline of the display screen, and two or more 

staggered buttons on the right. See Hamilton Decl. Exs. H, L. As such, the buttons located 

on the left and right sides of the display screen do not correspond in shape, size or position 

on each side of the centerline of the display screen, and hence, do not infringe Claims 1 or 9 

of the ‘944 Patent. 

Case 4:13-cv-00888-SBA Document 82 Filed 07/17/15 Page 19 of 25
- 20 - 

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 

Quintal contends that Nintendo’s emphasis that the Game Boy devices have buttons 

of different shapes and sizes on either side of the display screen is a “red herring” because 

“the clusters of controls remain symmetrically arranged.” Pl.’s Opp’n, Dkt. 49 at 21-22 

(emphasis added). However, the patent claims at issue require “two spaced thumb controls 

mounted on the front of the pocketsize unit. . . . wherein the . . . two spaced thumb controls 

are symmetrically arranged on each side of the display screen.” ‘944 Patent, col. 18 ll. 26-

28 (emphasis added). The claims do not recite or otherwise relate to symmetrically 

arranged “groups” or “clusters of controls.” Thus, to meet the limitations recited in Claims 

1 and 9, Quintal must identify at least one thumb control on the left side of the console that 

is “symmetrically arranged” with at least one thumb control on the right side. Thus, even if 

Quintal were correct that “symmetrically arranged” means only locational symmetry, the 

accused devices still would not infringe Claims 1 and 9, which explicitly teach the use of 

two thumb-operated buttons—not multiple buttons on each side of the display screen. 

2. Doctrine of Equivalents 

Where an accused device does not literally infringe, a patentee may prove 

infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 

208 F.3d 1352, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Under this doctrine, infringement may be found 

only “if every limitation of the asserted claim, or its ‘equivalent,’ is found in the accused 

subject matter, where an ‘equivalent’ differs from the claimed limitation only 

insubstantially.” Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 149 F.3d 1309, 1315 

(Fed. Cir. 1998). “An element in the accused product is equivalent to a claim limitation if 

the differences between the two are ‘insubstantial’ to one of ordinary skill in the art.” 

Eagle Comtronics, Inc. v. Arrow Commc’n Labs., Inc., 305 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 

2002). To oppose a defendant’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement under 

the doctrine of equivalents, the plaintiff has the burden of producing “particularized 

testimony and linking argument on a limitation-by-limitation basis that create[s] a genuine 

Case 4:13-cv-00888-SBA Document 82 Filed 07/17/15 Page 20 of 25
- 21 - 

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 

issue of material fact as to equivalents.” AquaTex Indus., Inc. v. Techniche Solutions, 479 

F.3d 1320, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2007).7 

a) Prosecution History Estoppel 

Nintendo contends that Quintal is estopped from relying on the doctrine of 

equivalents on the ground that, during the patent prosecution process, the “symmetrically 

arranged” language was added as a narrowing amendment to avoid prior art. “The doctrine 

of prosecution history estoppel bars a patentee from asserting as an equivalent subject 

matter surrendered during prosecution of the patent application.” Eagle Comtronics, 305 

F.3d at 1316.8 If a claim is narrowed for any reason related to patentability, “the inventor is 

deemed to concede that the patent does not extend as far as the original claim.” Festo Corp. 

v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 737-38 (2002); Glaxo 

Wellcome, Inc. v. Impax Labs., Inc., 356 F.3d 1348, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (stating that if a 

claim is so narrowed, it is presumed “that the patentee surrendered the territory between the 

original claims and the amended claims”). 

“The first question in a prosecution history estoppel inquiry is whether an 

amendment filed in the Patent and Trademark Office [] has narrowed the literal scope of a 

claim. If the amendment was not narrowing, then prosecution history estoppel does not 

apply.” Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 344 F.3d 1359, 1366 

(Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal citation omitted). Here, the record shows that the patent examiner 

added the “symmetrically arranged” limitation due to his concern that the ‘944 Patent 

would be deemed anticipated or obvious in light of the prior art. He noted that the newly-

 7 A court may determine infringement on summary judgment when no reasonable 

jury could find that every limitation recited in the properly construed claim either is or is 

not found in the accused device. EMD Millipore Corp. v. AllPure Techs., Inc., 768 F.3d 

1196, 1200-201 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 

8 The Federal Circuit has “recognized that prosecution history estoppel can occur . . . 

in one of two ways, either (1) by making a narrowing amendment to the claim 

(‘amendment-based estoppel’) or (2) by surrendering claim scope through argument to the 

patent examiner (‘argument-based estoppel’).” Conoco, Inc. v. Energy & Envtl. Int’l, L.C., 

460 F.3d 1349, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Nintendo’s argument is predicated upon 

amendment-based estoppel. 

Case 4:13-cv-00888-SBA Document 82 Filed 07/17/15 Page 21 of 25
- 22 - 

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 

added “symmetrically arranged” limitation was among “key features of the claimed 

invention that are not taught or fairly suggested by the prior art.” Hamilton Decl., Ex. B, 

Dkt. 45-7 at 7. Notably, the examiner pointed out that the “closest prior art Matthews 

(5,432,510) teaches [a] data input device [that] includes an ergonomic arrangement of keys 

on [a] casing”—but that the Matthews reference, whether considered individually or in 

combination of other prior art, did not read on the specified limitations, as amended. Id. In 

other words, the examiner deemed it necessary to add the “symmetrically arranged” 

limitation to narrow the claims in order to avoid any potential anticipation or obviousness 

issues.9

Quintal argues that subsequent findings made by the examiner prove that the claims 

were not narrowed. As noted, after the examiner amended the inventor’s claims and issued 

the Notice of Allowance, the inventor submitted an Amendment After Allowance in which 

he sought to correct a typographical error and add a clarification that the finger and thumb 

controls must be symmetrically arranged on each side “of the centerline” of the display 

screen. Hamilton Decl. Ex. C, Dkt. 45-8. After the examiner and inventor discussed the 

matter by telephone, the examiner concluded that the “[the Amendment After Allowance] 

is proper and is not effected [sic] the scope of the invention.” Martinez Decl. Ex. 13, Dkt. 

52-5 at 3. Quintal seizes upon the examiner’s comment that the claims were “not effected” 

as proof that the examiner’s addition of “symmetrically arranged” did not narrow the patent 

claims. Pl.’s Opp’n, Dkt. 49 at 6. This contention lacks merit. In making that remark, the 

examiner was referring to the effect of the inventor’s proposed amendment in the 

Amendment After Allowance, not his (the examiner’s) original amendment as set forth in 

the Notice of Allowance. Thus, the Court rejects Quintal’s contention that the amendment 

was not narrowing. 

 9 Quintal claims that the examiner’s amendment was “not made to overcome 

rejection base on the Matthews patent . . . .” Dkt. 49 at 22. As set forth above, the Court 

disagrees with that assertion. But whether or not the amendment was made in response to a 

particular prior art reference is inapposite. The salient question is whether the amendment 

was made to secure patentability. 

Case 4:13-cv-00888-SBA Document 82 Filed 07/17/15 Page 22 of 25
- 23 - 

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 

Having concluded that the amendment was narrowing, the Court turns to the next 

inquiry, which “is whether the reason for that amendment was a substantial one relating to 

patentability.” Festo, 344 F.3d at 1366-67. “When the prosecution history record reveals 

no reason for the narrowing amendment, [the law] presumes that the patentee had a 

substantial reason relating to patentability; consequently, the patentee must show that the 

reason for the amendment was not one relating to patentability if it is to rebut that 

presumption.” Id. at 1366. Quintal argues that the addition of “symmetrically arranged” to 

Claims 1 and 9 was not intended to avoid rejection under the Matthews prior art reference, 

but was only intended to “clarify” the patent claims. Dkt. 49 at 22. However, the examiner 

made a point of stating that the prior art taught “the ergonomic arrangement of keys,” it did 

not disclose a “pocket-size unit” containing “symmetrically arranged” finger and thumb 

controls. Hamilton Decl. Ex. C, Dkt. 45-7 at 7. Under Quintal’s reading of the Notice of 

Allowance, the examiner’s findings would be superfluous. 

Finally, “[if] the court determines that a narrowing amendment has been made for a 

substantial reason relating to patentability . . . then the third question in a prosecution 

history estoppel analysis addresses the scope of the subject matter surrendered by the 

narrowing amendment.” Festo, 344 F.3d at 1367. Quintal claims that Nintendo has failed 

to address this inquiry. But it is presumed “that the patentee has surrendered all territory 

between the original claim limitation and the amended claim limitation,” unless the 

patentee can rebut the presumption of total surrender. Id. In this case, the subject matter 

surrendered as a result of the amendment is the required design insofar as the finger and 

thumb controls are concerned, which now must be “symmetrically arranged.” Accordingly, 

the Court is persuaded that the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel precludes Quintal 

from relying on the doctrine of equivalents in this action. 

b) Merits 

Even if it were not precluded from claiming infringement under the doctrine of 

equivalents, Quintal has failed to make a sufficient showing of equivalence to survive 

summary judgment. “To find infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, any 

Case 4:13-cv-00888-SBA Document 82 Filed 07/17/15 Page 23 of 25
- 24 - 

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 

differences between the claimed invention and the accused product must be insubstantial.” 

Virnetx, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 767 F.3d 1308, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 

“Insubstantiality may be determined by whether the accused device performs substantially 

the same function in substantially the same way to obtain substantially the same result as 

the claim limitation.” Id. (emphasis added). Thus, where the moving party has 

demonstrated its entitlement to summary judgment of no literal infringement, the plaintiff 

then has the burden of producing “particularized testimony and linking argument on a 

limitation-by-limitation basis that create[s] a genuine issue of material fact as to 

equivalents.” AquaTex Indus., Inc. v. Techniche Solutions, 479 F.3d 1320, 1328-29 (Fed. 

Cir. 2007) (affirming grant of summary judgment of non-infringement where plaintiff 

failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact under the doctrine of equivalents by 

only providing lawyer argument and generalized testimony about the accused product). 

Quintal argues that the buttons on the accused devices perform the same function—

i.e., “data input or game playing via button depressing”—as the claimed symmetrically 

arranged controls. However, this function bears no relation to the limitation at issue, since 

any “two spaced thumb controls” would perform Quintal’s proposed function irrespective 

of how the buttons are arranged, effectively writing “symmetrically” out of the claim. 

Moreover, Quintal has failed to proffer “particularized testimony and linking argument as 

to the insubstantiality of the differences between the claimed invention and the accused 

device or process, or with respect to the ‘function, way, result’ test . . . .” Am. Calcar, Inc. 

v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 651 F.3d 1318, 1338-39 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The expert 

testimony presented by Quintal in this regard is entirely conclusory and is insufficient to 

create a question of fact under the doctrine of equivalents. Id. (“generalized testimony as to 

the overall similarity between the claims and the accused infringer’s product from one of 

the inventors does not suffice to create a genuine issue of material fact.”).10 The Court 

 10 Quintal’s expert, John Wharton, states: “Even if the components within the 

symmetrically arranged controls were not the same size and shape, they would nonetheless 

perform substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain the same 

result.” Wharton Decl. ¶ 21, Dkt. 49-1. 

Case 4:13-cv-00888-SBA Document 82 Filed 07/17/15 Page 24 of 25
- 25 - 

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 

therefore finds that Quintal has failed to raise a material question of fact as to whether 

Nintendo’s accused Game Boy devices infringe under the doctrine of equivalents. 

C. RULE 56(D) REQUEST

In a footnote, Quintal seeks a continuance of the instant motion, see Pl.’s Opp’n, 

Dkt. 49 at 23 n.8, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), which allows a court 

to defer consideration of a summary judgment motion where “a nonmovant shows by 

affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot represent facts essential to 

justify its opposition.” To obtain relief under this rule, “[t]he requesting party must show: 

(1) it has set forth in affidavit form the specific facts it hopes to elicit from further 

discovery; (2) the facts sought exist; and (3) the sought-after facts are essential to oppose 

summary judgment.” Family Home & Fin. Ctr., Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 525 

F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2008). The “[f]ailure to comply with these requirements is a proper 

ground for denying discovery and proceeding to summary judgment.” Id. (internal 

quotation marks omitted). Setting aside that it is improper for a party to present a 

substantive request in a footnote devoid of any meaningful analysis, see City of Emeryville 

v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1251, 1261 n.9 (9th Cir. 2010), Quintal has otherwise failed to make 

the requisite showing for a Rule 56(d) request, which is therefore denied. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is 

GRANTED. The Clerk shall close the file and terminate all pending matters. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 17, 2015 ______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:13-cv-00888-SBA Document 82 Filed 07/17/15 Page 25 of 25