Axcess, LLC. v. Nintendo of America Inc.
States District Court for the Western District of Washington
July 7, 2014; Decided August 4, 2015
infringement of U.S. Patent 6,522,309. The accused products are
Defendants’ Nintendo DS handheld game consoles.
Display Method and Apparatus,” and it relates to a computer with multiple
display capability. A user can simultaneously display documents using a
singular processed video data signal source, on two or more screens. The ‘309 teaches a device termed a “translative video adapter”, which is used on two or more screens to view and edit documents simultaneously. S/A asserts that Nintendo patent 7,786,997 entitled, “Portable Game Machine and Computer-Readable Recording Medium,” infringes the ‘309 patent with its dual-screen.
display method for use with a computer to produce a real-time display on a
first monitor and a computer user selected predecessory display on a second
monitor and comprising steps of:
data into a ported source of display-ready first processed video data signal;
ported source of first processed video data signal and the first monitor;
processed video data signal on the first monitor as the real time display;
ported source of first processed video data signal and a translative video
adapter (TVA) comprising further steps of:
user to select a first sample of a first screen portion of the first processed
video data signal second intercoupled with a TVA input port;
data representing the first sample in a first memory;
program data to usually produce a second screen portion of the first processed
video data signal for updating the real-time display on the first monitor;
reading the first stored said first video data from the first memory;
read said first video data signal into a first predecessory video signal; and,
predecessory video signal on a second monitor as the first predecessory
Nintendo, finding Defendants did not infringe the ‘309 patent. The judgment was
based on the claim construction order, which was found in favor of Defendants.
construe “translative video adapter”, which is used in Claims 1, 9,
and 13 in the asserted patent. Plaintiff argued the TVA included software
and/or hardware, but the Court declined to adopt this construction. Instead,
the Court agreed with Nintendo that the TVA should be construed to mean an
accessory device. The Court stated, “the term TVA appears in Claims 1 and 9 as a structure – as a physical device to be intercoupl[ed] with data signal and a monitor – not as a function.”