Acco Brands & BDA v. Performance Designed Products: Game Controller Patent Dispute Stayed
Acco Brands and Bensussen Deutsch & Associates LLC filed suit against Performance Designed Products LLC in the Southern District of California, asserting three patents covering interchangeable input mechanisms for video game controllers. The court denied PDP’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction across four counts, then stayed the case — all within 142 days of filing.
Three game controller patents at stake as court denies jurisdiction challenge
On June 25, 2024, Acco Brands and co-plaintiff Bensussen Deutsch & Associates LLC (BDA) filed a patent infringement action against Performance Designed Products LLC (PDP) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint asserted three patents — US10942584B2, US10874938B2, and US10042435B2 — all directed to interchangeable input mechanisms for video game controllers, a product category in which both BDA and PDP compete directly in the consumer electronics market.
PDP responded by moving to dismiss Counts I–IV and IX for lack of jurisdiction, a challenge the court heard and denied on the record on November 14, 2024. Rather than proceed immediately on the merits, the court simultaneously stayed the case and administratively closed it, directing plaintiff counsel Chad S.C. Stover to file a brief by November 21, 2024 on an issue discussed at the hearing. The administrative closure is procedural — the case remains live and can be reopened.
The 142-day interval from filing to stay is notably compressed. The swift jurisdictional challenge by PDP — fielding a six-attorney defense team from Knobbe Martens — suggests a calculated early-stage strategy to contest the forum or standing before engaging on infringement merits. The public record does not disclose the specific jurisdictional basis PDP asserted, nor the precise issue on which the court sought additional briefing, leaving the litigation trajectory uncertain pending the November 21 brief.
Filing to Case Stayed in 142 days
142-day lifespan before stay; typical district court patent cases run 2–3 years to trial
Motion denied, case stayed: what the administrative closure means
Denied motion to dismiss, then an administrative stay: what it means
The court’s denial of PDP’s jurisdictional motion is a meaningful early win for plaintiffs — it confirms the court is satisfied it has authority to hear the dispute. However, an administrative stay with closure is a procedural pause, not a resolution on the merits. The case can be reopened by order, and the pending briefing requirement suggests the court identified a discrete legal issue requiring further argument before the litigation proceeds.
Procedural stay — no merits ruling yetJurisdictional hurdle cleared, but path to merits still uncertain
For Acco Brands and BDA, the denial of PDP’s motion to dismiss is an important threshold victory — the three asserted patents survive the jurisdictional challenge and remain in play. The mandatory briefing order suggests the court has identified a specific issue, possibly related to standing, venue propriety, or claim scope, that plaintiffs must address satisfactorily before the case advances to discovery or infringement analysis.
Jurisdiction upheld — merits pendingPDP’s jurisdiction gambit fails, but stay buys time
PDP’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction was denied across all targeted counts, a setback to its early-exit strategy. That said, the case stay means PDP does not yet face discovery obligations or substantive infringement briefing. The pending plaintiff brief could create a further opportunity for PDP to renew challenges or narrow the scope of claims, depending on how the court’s identified issue resolves.
Dismissal denied — litigation continuesInterchangeable controller input tech faces continued patent scrutiny
Three active patents covering interchangeable input mechanisms for video game controllers remaining in litigation signals that this product category carries meaningful IP risk. Competitors developing modular or customisable controller interfaces should assess their designs against the Acco Brands / BDA portfolio. The outcome of the pending briefing may clarify which claims survive and which products are squarely in scope, making this a case worth monitoring closely.
Modular controller IP — sector-wide riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Acco Brands | Individual | Consumer electronics IP licensor — holder of US10942584B2, US10874938B2, US10042435B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Bensussen Deutsch & Associates LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Performance Designed Products, LLC | Company | Performance Designed Products LLC — video game controller and accessories manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Amy C. Poyer | Attorney | Counsel for Acco BrandsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Chad S.C. Stover | Attorney | Counsel for Acco BrandsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Eric J. Beste | Attorney | Counsel for Acco BrandsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Barnes & Thornburg, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Acco BrandsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ali S. Razai | Attorney | Counsel for Performance Designed Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brandon Geoffrey Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Performance Designed Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christy Goudamanis | Attorney | Counsel for Performance Designed Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mark Lezama | Attorney | Counsel for Performance Designed Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew T. Pham | Attorney | Counsel for Performance Designed Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mengmeng Du | Attorney | Counsel for Performance Designed Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Performance Designed Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s bench ruling denying PDP’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction across Counts I–IV and IX confirms that threshold jurisdictional objections — likely challenging standing, personal jurisdiction, or venue — did not find favour. The simultaneous administrative stay and closure order is procedurally unusual and suggests the court identified a discrete legal or factual issue requiring supplemental briefing before discovery or substantive motions can proceed. No infringement, validity, or damages findings have been made.
US10942584B2, US10874938B2 & US10042435B2 — Interchangeable Video Game Controller Inputs
The three asserted patents — US10942584B2, US10874938B2, and US10042435B2 — share a common technical focus: interchangeable and modular input mechanisms for video game controllers. Filed across application numbers US16/803724, US16/573929, and US15/908625, these patents cover the hardware architecture that enables players to swap, replace, or reconfigure physical input components such as thumbsticks, triggers, or directional controls. This technology sits at the intersection of consumer electronics industrial design and ergonomics engineering.
For BDA and Acco Brands, this portfolio represents a strategic IP position in the growing market for customisable and pro-grade video game peripherals — a segment where PDP is a direct commercial rival. The layered assertion of three patents with overlapping technical coverage suggests a deliberate effort to create redundant infringement exposure for any product incorporating modular input design. Competitors building interchangeable controller components face a meaningful risk of falling within at least one claim of this portfolio.
Should you run an FTO against US10942584B2, US10874938B2 & US10042435B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing video game controllers with modular, swappable, or reconfigurable input mechanisms should treat this three-patent portfolio as a live FTO priority. The case confirms these patents are being actively enforced in U.S. courts, and the court’s denial of the jurisdictional challenge means at least one major defendant could not avoid the suit at the threshold. Product and R&D teams developing customisable controller hardware should map their designs against all three claim sets before commercialisation.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables rapid cross-patent claim mapping across the full Acco Brands / BDA portfolio. You can compare independent claims from US10942584B2, US10874938B2, and US10042435B2 against your product specifications simultaneously, identify claim limitations most likely to present risk, and surface prior art that may support invalidity arguments — all before your product ships or your next licensing negotiation begins.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10942584B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar video game controller patent cases in U.S. district courts
Cases involving interchangeable and modular input mechanism patents for video game controllers litigated in U.S. district courts, including the Southern District of California.
What this case signals for the video game controller IP landscape
Three patents on interchangeable input mechanisms, a denied jurisdiction play, and a court-ordered stay — this case sets up a pivotal merits battle.
Early jurisdictional challenges are a common PDP-style defense tactic
Fielding six defense attorneys and moving immediately to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction — before any infringement briefing — is consistent with a strategy to test forum selection and standing at minimal cost. Patent holders asserting controller technology IP should expect similar threshold challenges and ensure airtight standing arguments from day one.
Three-patent assertion creates layered invalidity and non-infringement exposure
Asserting US10942584B2, US10874938B2, and US10042435B2 simultaneously raises the defensive burden considerably. Each patent must be individually challenged on validity and infringement grounds. For competitors in the modular controller space, this portfolio depth suggests BDA and Acco Brands have deliberately constructed overlapping coverage around interchangeable input mechanisms.
Brands v Performance — key questions answered
Acco Brands and Bensussen Deutsch & Associates LLC asserted three patents: US10942584B2, US10874938B2, and US10042435B2. All three cover interchangeable input mechanisms for video game controllers. The case was filed in the Southern District of California on June 25, 2024.
The court denied PDP’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on November 14, 2024, but simultaneously stayed and administratively closed the case. The court directed plaintiff counsel to file a brief by November 21, 2024 addressing an issue discussed at the hearing. The precise issue is not disclosed in the public record. An administrative closure is procedural — the case remains live and can be reopened.
PDP moved to dismiss Counts I–IV and IX for lack of jurisdiction. The court denied the motion, confirming jurisdiction is proper. The specific grounds — whether personal jurisdiction, subject-matter jurisdiction, or standing — are not detailed in the publicly available record. The denial means PDP must now defend on the merits unless the forthcoming briefing changes the court’s direction.
The complaint targets PDP’s video game controllers, specifically products incorporating interchangeable input mechanisms. This is consistent with PDP’s commercial product line of licensed gaming peripherals. The three asserted patents cover modular and swappable physical input components — features increasingly common in pro and customisable controller product lines.
Acco Brands and BDA are represented by Barnes & Thornburg LLP, with attorneys Amy C. Poyer, Chad S.C. Stover, and Eric J. Beste on record. Performance Designed Products is represented by Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP, with a six-attorney team including Ali S. Razai, Mark Lezama, Matthew T. Pham, Brandon Geoffrey Smith, Christy Goudamanis, and Mengmeng Du.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.