Invalidity dossier
US 9089770
Controller for video game console
Current assignee: Collective Minds Gaming Co. Ltd.
Added 5/9/2026, 12:47:37 AM
Active provider: Google · gemini-2.5-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Summary: US 9,089,770
A concise summary of United States Patent 9,089,770 is provided below, including details of its prosecution and an overview of its independent claims.
Title: Controller for video game console
Assignee: Ironburg Inventions Ltd.
Inventors: Simon Burgess, Duncan Ironmonger
Filing Date: December 27, 2013
Issue Date: July 28, 2015
Abstract: An improved controller for a game console that is intended to be held by a user in both hands in the same manner as a conventional controller, which has controls on the front operable by the thumbs, and has two additional controls located on the back in positions to be operated by the middle fingers of a user.
Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:
This patent contains one independent claim.
Claim 1: This claim describes a video game controller with a standard layout on the front and top, but with the addition of two controls on the back. These back controls are specifically designed as long, thin "elongate members" that run at least half the vertical distance of the controller's back. The claim specifies the controller has a front, back, top, and bottom, along with two handles on the sides. The key innovation is the placement and length of these two back controls.
There is a notable history of litigation involving this patent and related patents from the same family. For instance, infringement lawsuits have been filed against companies such as Valve Corporation and Collective Minds Gaming Co. Ltd. These legal disputes have involved proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). A case against Valve Corporation, for example, involved a jury verdict of willful infringement and a damages award of over $4 million. This case also led to a significant Federal Circuit decision regarding IPR estoppel, clarifying which party has the burden of proof.
Generated 5/9/2026, 6:47:50 AM