IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Nintendo Switch products did not infringe accessory device patents, (Jan 16, 2026)

By Thomas Long, J.D.

The accused products lacked the asserted patents’ claimed “apertures” for securing a button or joystick.

The Nintendo Switch video game console did not infringe asserted claims of two patents related to a game controller accessory device because the Switch lacked a key component of the claimed device, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has determined. The appellate court affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Nintendo of America, Inc., and Nintendo Co., Ltd., in a lawsuit brought by a manufacturer of gaming components for handheld computers, such as tablets. Specifically, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that the Switch lacked the patents’ claimed “apertures” (holes) securing a button or joystick in place. The buttons on the Switch were instead secured (held in place) by a flange, pins, and other hardware. Additionally, the Switch’s joysticks were secured to the device’s upper housing with screws rather than apertures (Gamevice, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., No. 24-1467 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 16, 2026)).

Infringement allegations. Patent owner Gamevice, Inc., is a California-based manufacturer of tablets and tablet peripherals used for gaming. The patents-in-suit were U.S. Patent Nos. 9,808,713 (“the ’713 patent”) and 10,391,393 (“the ’393 patent”). Both were titled “Game Controller with Structural Bridge” and disclosed an accessory device that attaches to a handheld computing device and enables users to play games. Gamevice filed suit against Nintendo in the Northern District of California, alleging that Nintendo’s Switch product infringed those patents, plus a third patent that the district court invalidated, narrowing the dispute to claims 3, 4, 6, 7, and 16 of the ’713 patent and claim 6 of the ’393 patent.

Patent claims. The patents described (1) a “computing device” with a display screen, such as a smartphone or tablet, combined with (2) an accessory that can be attached to opposing sides of the computing device to provide controls for gameplay and can be removed to return the device to normal operation. They disclosed a “pair of control modules” having “input module apertures,” with each aperture securing “an instructional input device.” The input device can be a button or a joystick.

Claim construction. The parties disputed the terms “computing device,” “confinement structures,” and “input module apertures” that “secure” “instructional input devices.” The district court in its Markman order construed “a pair of confinement structures/confinement structure” to mean “physical component(s) that hold[] a computing device.” It also construed “computing device” to mean “electronic equipment controlled by a CPU.” The district court did not construe “input module apertures,” but in its summary judgment order, it gave “aperture” its plain and ordinary meaning: “hole.”

Noninfringement ruling. Pursuant to these constructions, the district court granted Nintendo’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement. Nintendo’s Switch contained a console and two “Joy-Con” controllers that slid into side rails attached to opposite ends of the console. In the district court’s view, there was no factual dispute that the Switch lacked the claimed “confinement structures” that hold a “computing device” and the required “apertures” that “secure” an instructional input device. Gamevice appealed.

Lack of “apertures.” Reviewing the grant of summary judgment de novo, according to the law of the Ninth Circuit, the Federal Circuit noted that the district court based its noninfringement conclusion on two rationales: (1) the Switch joysticks are secured with screws, not apertures; and (2) the 0.2mm radial clearance between the respective Switch apertures and the buttons and joysticks demonstrates that the apertures do not secure the buttons and joysticks. The appellate court agreed that the Switch lacked the claimed “apertures” and affirmed the grant of summary judgment for Nintendo on that ground alone.

According to the Federal Circuit, the asserted claims required all apertures to individually secure their respective input devices. Gamevice concedes that “instructional input devices” included both buttons and joysticks, so both the Switch’s buttons and joysticks had to be secured by the apertures to meet the claim limitation.

“Here, neither the Switch buttons nor joysticks are secured by the apertures,” the appellate court said. It was undisputed that “secure” meant “hold in place” and an “aperture” was a “hole.” The parties also agreed that the Switch’s buttons were held in by a flange at the bottom. The flange was secured in position by the rubber actuator, circuit board, and pins, sandwiched between the upper and lower housings of the Joy-Con controller. The Switch buttons and joysticks protruded through holes that were larger in size than the buttons and joysticks and therefore did not work to secure those input devices in a fixed position, the court reasoned. In addition, the joysticks on the Switch were attached to its upper housing with screws, not apertures, the Federal Circuit noted. This provided another basis for affirming summary judgment.

The Federal Circuit rejected Gamevice’s argument that the district court erred in construing “secure” to exclude the use of additional components, such as a flange or a screw. The argument was based on a misreading of the summary judgment order; the district court did not say that the claimed apertures couldn’t secure anything, but instead found that the specific apertures in the accused Switch “themselves cannot secure anything [because] the parties agree that the buttons are held in by a flange at the bottom.” Moreover, Gamevice never asked for a construction of “secure” that would allow for the use of housing material surrounding the holes (and not the holes themselves) to hold the instructional input devices in place. Nor did Gamevice point to any part of the specification or its expert report to support this construction.

The Federal Circuit therefore affirmed the grant of summary judgment for Nintendo and remand to permit Nintendo to move the district court to vacate its invalidity ruling and enter judgment based on noninfringement.

The case is No. 24-1467.

Judge: Chen, R.

Attorneys: Erik R. Puknys (Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP) for Gamevice, Inc. Dan L. Bagatell (Perkins Coie LLP) for Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America, Inc.

Companies: Gamevice, Inc.; Nintendo Co., Ltd.; Nintendo of America, Inc.

MainStory: TopStory Patent TechnologyInternet FedCirNews