Better Mouse Company, LLC v. UtechSmart Inc.

After a two-year litigation hiatus, Better Mouse Company, LLC has brought its sole litigation campaign back to life, suing Acer (5:20-cv-07895), Kingston Technology (8:20-cv-02166), and VTIN Technology (2:20-cv-10269) over the sale of certain computer peripherals. The new cases have been filed in the Central and Northern Districts of California, which require the disclosure of nonparties interested in the outcome of the litigation, despite which Better Mouse has filed the less stringent identification of any corporate parent (none) and of any publicly traded entity holding ten percent or more of the plaintiff’s stock (none).

As the 2016 wave of its litigation campaign dissipates, Better Mouse Company, LLC has filed four more cases, one against Amazon, E-Blue, and Wal-Mart (2:17-cv-00314) and one each against HP (2:17-cv-00316), Razer (2:17-cv-00317), and Toshiba (2:17-cv-00318). The same single patent (7,532,200), generally related to a computer mouse with a switch that changes the mouse’s sensitivity/resolution, has been asserted in these new complaints, which target gaming mice made and sold by E-Blue, HP, Razer, and Toshiba. The NPE appears to have accused Amazon and Wal-Mart of infringement through the sale of certain such mice: the E-Blue Mazer II, Mioni x Naos 3200, Toshiba’s OCZ Equalizer, and the UtechSmart Mars and Venus.

A January 2016 loss at trial has not deterred Better Mouse Company, LLC. The Texas-based NPE has rebooted the litigation campaign begun in March 2014 by filing eight new cases two years later, one each against DOV Enterprises (d/b/a Sharkk) (2:16-cv-00326), Etekcity (2:16-cv-00270), Kworld (d/b/a Gamdias) (2:16-cv-00271), PC Gear Head (d/b/a Gear Head) (2:16-cv-00272), SDI Technologies (d/b/a iHome) (2:16-cv-00327), Sentey (2:16-cv-00328), THQ (Inland Products) (2:16-cv-00330), and UtechSmart (2:16-cv-00331). A single patent (7,532,200) generally related to a computer mouse with a switch that changes the mouse’s sensitivity/resolution has been asserted against defendants’ computer peripherals.