American GNC v. Nintendo: MEMS Inertial Sensor Patents Stayed Pending IPR
American GNC Corp. asserted two MEMS inertial measurement patents against Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America, Inc. in the Western District of Washington. The district court stayed the case pending PTAB inter partes review proceedings, with limited discovery carve-outs surviving the stay — a split outcome spanning 438 days before the stay was imposed.
MEMS motion-sensor patents collide with Nintendo’s gaming hardware
On March 3, 2023, American GNC Corp. filed suit against Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington before Judge Tana Lin. The complaint alleges infringement of US6671648B2, covering a micro inertial measurement unit, and US6508122B1, covering a microelectromechanical system for measuring angular rate — both technologies directly relevant to the motion-sensing capabilities central to Nintendo’s gaming products.
Nintendo moved to stay the case pending inter partes review (IPR) petitions filed at the PTAB. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part: the case is stayed in all material respects pending PTAB decisions, but American GNC retained the right to pursue limited third-party discovery from STMicroelectronics and to depose Hiram McCall, and Nintendo was ordered to respond to outstanding interrogatories. All trial and Markman hearing deadlines were vacated.
The case effectively paused at the discovery stage, with no merits ruling on infringement or validity. The stay outcome suggests Nintendo’s IPR petitions were viewed as presenting a substantial challenge to the asserted patents — a typical signal that the PTAB institution threshold was likely met or anticipated. The public record does not disclose the specific IPR grounds or whether institution has yet been granted, leaving the ultimate fate of both patents unresolved.
Filing to Case Stayed in 438 days
438 days from filing to case stay — consistent with IPR-driven early stays in W.D. Washington
Case stayed pending IPR: what the split ruling means for both parties
What a litigation stay pending IPR actually means
A stay pending inter partes review suspends district court proceedings while the PTAB independently evaluates patent validity. Courts in the Western District of Washington routinely consider the stage of litigation, prejudice to the patentee, and likelihood of IPR simplifying the issues. A partial grant — preserving limited discovery — suggests the court balanced Nintendo’s validity challenge against American GNC’s interest in preserving evidence, rather than imposing a blanket freeze.
Proceedings paused at PTABAmerican GNC retains limited discovery rights under the stay
Despite the stay, American GNC secured the right to conduct third-party discovery against STMicroelectronics and to depose Hiram McCall — carve-outs that suggest the court recognised time-sensitive evidentiary concerns. American GNC may also move to lift the stay for further targeted discovery after receiving STMicro materials. This partial protection limits but does not eliminate the risk of evidence dissipation during what could be a lengthy PTAB proceeding.
Limited discovery preservedNintendo’s IPR strategy pauses the main battlefield
By securing a stay, Nintendo has shifted the primary dispute to the PTAB, where validity is assessed on a preponderance standard with broader claim construction latitude than district court. A successful IPR cancellation of even one asserted claim could significantly narrow or eliminate the infringement case. Nintendo was, however, ordered to answer outstanding interrogatories — indicating the court did not grant a complete litigation holiday.
Validity challenge at PTABMotion-sensor IP risk for gaming hardware remains live
The MEMS angular-rate and inertial measurement patents at issue cover foundational motion-sensing technology embedded in modern gaming controllers and handheld devices. A PTAB decision upholding these patents would revive district court proceedings and increase licensing pressure across the gaming sector. Competitors using similar MEMS-based motion input technology may wish to monitor PTAB docket entries on these patents and assess their own exposure ahead of any PTAB institution decision.
MEMS gaming IP risk liveFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | American GNC Corp. | Company | MEMS inertial navigation technology developer — holder of US6671648B2 and US6508122B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Nintendo Co., Ltd. | Company | Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America, Inc. — global gaming hardware and software manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Nintendo of America, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Corey Johanningmeier | Attorney | Counsel for American GNC Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael N. Zachary | Attorney | Counsel for American GNC Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Bunsow De Mory, LLP | Law Firm | Representing American GNC Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | BUNSOW DE MORY LLP (REDWOOD CITY) | Law Firm | Representing American GNC Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Dena Chen | Attorney | Counsel for Nintendo Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lawrence D. Graham | Attorney | Counsel for Nintendo Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mark P. Walters | Attorney | Counsel for Nintendo Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew Brigham | Attorney | Counsel for Nintendo Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Patrick W Lauppe | Attorney | Counsel for Nintendo Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stephen R Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Nintendo Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | COOLEY LLP (DC) | Law Firm | Representing Nintendo Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Cooley LLP (PALO ALTO) | Law Firm | Representing Nintendo Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Lowe Graham Jones, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Nintendo Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Tana Lin | Judge | Washington Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order granting a partial stay — rather than a full stay or outright denial — reflects a carefully calibrated balancing of the traditional three-factor test applied in this district: stage of proceedings, undue prejudice to the non-moving party, and likelihood of simplification. By preserving discovery against STMicro and ordering interrogatory responses, the court signalled that American GNC demonstrated concrete risk of prejudice, even while accepting that Nintendo’s IPR petitions present a plausible validity challenge warranting PTAB-first adjudication. No merits findings on infringement or validity have been made.
US6671648B2 & US6508122B1 — Micro Inertial Measurement and MEMS Angular Rate Sensing
US6671648B2 protects a micro inertial measurement unit (IMU) — a miniaturised sensor assembly capable of tracking multi-axis motion and orientation. US6508122B1 covers a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) specifically designed to measure angular rate, a core function in gyroscopic sensing. Both patents originate from application filings in the early 2000s, placing them in the pioneering generation of commercially viable MEMS inertial sensors that now underpin gaming controllers, mobile devices, drones, and automotive systems.
For the gaming hardware sector, these patents are strategically significant because motion-sensing input — central to Nintendo’s controller ecosystem since the Wii era — depends on precisely the MEMS angular rate and inertial measurement capabilities these patents describe. Any company integrating MEMS-based motion input into consumer electronics, IoT devices, or robotics should assess whether their implementation falls within the scope of these claims, particularly given that American GNC has now demonstrated willingness to litigate against a major hardware OEM.
Should your product team run an FTO against US6671648B2 and US6508122B1?
Any organisation developing or sourcing hardware that incorporates MEMS-based inertial measurement or angular rate sensing should treat these patents as active risk vectors until the PTAB issues its decisions. This applies to gaming controller manufacturers, mobile device OEMs, drone and robotics developers, and automotive Tier-1 suppliers integrating MEMS IMUs. The fact that Nintendo — with extensive IP resources — faced a stay rather than an early dismissal suggests these claims have sufficient surface area to survive initial challenge.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s MEMS motion-sensing architecture against the claim trees of US6671648B2 and US6508122B1, flagging overlap and identifying prior art that may support design-around or IPR strategies. Eureka also monitors PTAB docket activity on these patents in real time, so your team receives immediate alerts when institution decisions or final written decisions are issued — enabling proactive rather than reactive IP risk management.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US6671648B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar MEMS inertial sensor patent cases in W.D. Washington and beyond
Explore related MEMS inertial measurement and angular rate sensor patent disputes in the Western District of Washington and comparable district court venues.
What this case signals for MEMS and gaming hardware IP strategy
Nintendo’s partial IPR stay shifts MEMS validity to the PTAB, creating a strategic fork that will shape motion-sensor licensing risk across the gaming industry.
IPR as a first-response tool against foundational MEMS patents
Nintendo’s immediate pivot to IPR petitions is consistent with the broader industry approach of challenging older MEMS sensor patents at the PTAB before engaging on claim construction. For hardware makers reliant on MEMS motion input, filing IPR early limits district court exposure and forces patentees to defend validity on a less favourable standard.
Partial stays preserve evidentiary leverage for patent holders
Courts increasingly grant partial rather than blanket stays, preserving targeted discovery even while deferring to the PTAB. Patent holders asserting time-sensitive supply-chain evidence — such as component sourcing from third parties like STMicro — should proactively identify and flag those discovery needs early to maximise their likelihood of obtaining carve-outs.
American v Nintendo — key questions answered
As of the case closure date of May 14, 2024, the matter is stayed pending PTAB decisions on Nintendo’s inter partes review petitions targeting US6671648B2 and US6508122B1. All trial and Markman deadlines were vacated. Limited discovery against STMicroelectronics and on outstanding interrogatories was preserved by court order.
American GNC asserted US6671648B2 (micro inertial measurement unit) and US6508122B1 (microelectromechanical system for measuring angular rate). Both patents cover foundational MEMS inertial sensing technology relevant to motion-tracking hardware used in gaming and consumer electronics.
The court balanced the traditional stay factors — litigation stage, prejudice to the patentee, and simplification likelihood — and found that American GNC demonstrated sufficient risk of evidentiary prejudice to warrant limited carve-outs. Specifically, the court preserved discovery against third-party STMicroelectronics and ordered Nintendo to respond to outstanding interrogatories, while staying all other proceedings pending IPR.
The court’s specific preservation of discovery against STMicroelectronics suggests American GNC’s infringement case may involve the MEMS component supply chain — potentially implicating the specific chips sourced by Nintendo. This carve-out is commercially significant for any company using STMicro MEMS sensors in motion-enabled products, as it suggests those components may be at the centre of the infringement theory.
The parties must file a joint status report within 14 days of the PTAB’s final decisions on all of Nintendo’s IPR petitions, or by October 1, 2024 at the latest. If the PTAB cancels the asserted claims, the district court case would likely be dismissed or narrowed. If claims survive, proceedings will resume and a new scheduling order — including Markman and trial dates — would need to be set.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.