Gametronics v. Corsair Gaming: Stipulated Dismissal in Data Signal Patent Dispute
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Gametronics, LLC v. Corsair Gaming, Inc. |
| Case Number | 1:25-cv-00903 |
| Court | District of Delaware, Chief Judge Jennifer L. Hall |
| Duration | July 2025 – February 2026 202 days |
| Outcome | Defendant Win – Dismissal with Prejudice |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Corsair Gaming Input Hardware |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Patent-holding entity asserting foundational data signal generation patents.
🛡️ Defendant
Well-established manufacturer of gaming peripherals, PC components, and input devices.
Patents at Issue
This case involved three U.S. patents covering apparatus and methods for generating data signals, foundational to input devices and peripheral communication protocols:
- • US8614667B2 — Apparatus and method for generating data signals
- • US8487872B2 — Apparatus and method for generating data signals
- • US7262762B2 — Apparatus and method for generating data signals
Developing an input device?
Check if your design might infringe these or related data signal patents.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The case was terminated by **stipulated dismissal with prejudice** pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Both parties jointly agreed to the dismissal, with each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No damages award, royalty determination, or injunctive relief was entered by the court.
Key Legal Issues
The stipulated dismissal means no judicial findings were made on validity, infringement, or claim construction. The “with prejudice” designation permanently resolves these specific claims against Corsair. The absence of fee-shifting suggests neither party sought, nor could readily establish, an exceptional case finding, indicating the litigation proceeded without egregious conduct by either side.
Drafting a data signal patent?
Learn from this case. Use AI to draft stronger claims for input device technology.
Power Your Patent Strategy with PatSnap Eureka IP
From novelty searches to patent drafting, PatSnap Eureka’s AI-powered tools help you navigate the patent landscape with confidence.
⚠️ Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in data signal generation for input devices. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- Review specific claims of US8614667B2, US8487872B2, US7262762B2
- Identify active players in data signal patent assertions
- Analyze typical litigation strategies in this space
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features of your input device
- AI identifies potentially blocking data signal patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report for your gaming hardware
High Risk Area
Data signal generation methods for input devices
3 Asserted Patents
In this case against Corsair
Early Resolution
Avoided costly discovery & trial
✅ Key Takeaways
For Patent Attorneys & Litigators
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) permanently resolves all asserted claims – confirm scope before execution.
Search related case law →Multi-patent assertion strategies increase settlement pressure but require careful pre-filing claim mapping.
Explore precedents →For R&D Teams
Freedom-to-operate (FTO) clearance for data signal generation methods in gaming input devices remains relevant.
Start FTO analysis for my product →Review product designs against US8614667B2, US8487872B2, and US7262762B2 as part of standard IP due diligence.
Try AI patent drafting →Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join thousands of IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyze competitive landscapes.