• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

BeI

Member
Dec 9, 2017
5,966
www.google.com

Valve on trial for allegedly copying SCUF controller features

Even after its recent discontinuation, Valve's Steam Controller continues to make headlines as SCUF goes to trial on one of its patents.


Apparently, those responsible for the patent warned Valve way back in 2014 when the Steam Controller was in the prototype stage. As we now know, Valve continued with development on the controller, choosing to press on and include the rear buttons. The patent holder still isn't happy with Valve ignoring the SCUF invention, and so, the trial goes on.

A Washington federal jury awarded just over $4 million on Monday to a game controller maker in the nation's first Zoom patent jury trial, finding that Valve Corp. willfully infringed a...

The 2nd article isn't fully available, but from reading some discussion on it, SCUF may have set a precedent of being able to go after anyone using direct or indirect back buttons on controllers that aren't paying them licensing, like the expensive Xbox Elite controller did. Unfortunately this may mean a new Steam controller is less likely to come out, and baseline grip / paddle buttons for console controllers are probably less likely to be a thing, especially with SCUF seemingly holding onto patents for 10+ more years to sell their expensive controllers.
 

Static

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
6,107
"Buttons on the back of a controller" seems like a really dumb thing to be permitted to patent but I don't know shit sooo.
SCUF may have set a precedent of being able to go after anyone using direct or indirect back buttons on controllers that aren't paying them licensing, like the expensive Xbox Elite controller did.
From the first article you linked, it sounds like Microsoft is already paying to license it.
The third-party controller manufacturer licenses the patent to Microsoft for instance, to use with its various Elite controllers.
 

Vash63

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,681
Wow, this is terrible. Stupid thing to be able to patent, it's just button placement ffs
 

Zomba13

#1 Waluigi Fan! Current Status: Crying
Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,898
Anyone hold the patent for buttons on the top or front of a controller? I'm pretty sure I can get the patent on bottom of controller buttons. I'm gonna be rich!
 

Chaosblade

Resettlement Advisor
Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,588
I agree it seems like a dumb, overly vague patent. If it were the specific type of back buttons with the paddles I could see that, but Valve's implementation was entirely different.

At least it's a company selling a product that won the lawsuit. I was expecting a troll sitting on a patent.
 

jaekeem

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,743
Wouldn't the license be chump change for valve? Surprised they're litigating this if Microsoft clearly thought it wasn't worth the billable hours
 

Strings

Member
Oct 27, 2017
31,360
Huh, so do we know if Sony paid them with the DS4 attachment or did that get around it / maybe this is why they didn't go for back buttons with the Dual Sense?
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,227
America needs to rethink its patent system. Back buttons don't deserve a patent.

There's no way I'm ever giving SCUF my money.
 

Fisty

Member
Oct 25, 2017
20,180
I imagine there will be appeals. I can't believe something that dumb can be patented to the point where other people doing their own version of it get sued
 

Mivey

Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,795
I imagine there will be appeals. I can't believe something that dumb can be patented to the point where other people doing their own version of it get sued

1F47zAv.gif
 

TSM

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,820
This whole thing is like the patent trolls that owned the rumble patent for controllers. Get the us government to give you an obvious and very broad patent and then sue everyone.

Huh, so do we know if Sony paid them with the DS4 attachment or did that get around it / maybe this is why they didn't go for back buttons with the Dual Sense?

I'd imagine they cicumvented it by not actually having the buttons on the controller. It's an add on module.
 

Jay Shadow

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,601
SCUF is apparently very proud of how many patents they have. There's a page of their website specifically for touting their 120 patents

scufgaming.com

SCUF Patents | Controller Patent Innovations

Customize your SCUF® controller & game like the elite on PS5, PS4, Xbox Series X/S, Xbox One, PC & legacy consoles. Take your gaming to another level with SCUF® controllers!

edit: I guess this is an old total, cause they put out a press release in late 2019 about their 150th patent.
 

Shoshi

Banned
Jan 9, 2018
1,661
Let there be a petition for asking SCUF to give up their patent or appeal to the US legal system allowing this insanity
 
Jul 28, 2020
637
Eh, when Microsoft brought the elite pad out, I assumed everyone was going to have a controller with paddles and that Scuf would go out of business. I think it's fair enough really, they came up with the idea, took the risk, made it work and people like it.

I think it's OK for these giant corporations to pay a license. If it really bothers them, they can probably buy the company.

I own an elite controller, never had a scuf pad, btw.
 

finalflame

Product Management
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
8,538
SCUF is apparently very proud of how many patents they have. There's a page of their website specifically for touting their 120 patents

scufgaming.com

SCUF Patents | Controller Patent Innovations

Customize your SCUF® controller & game like the elite on PS5, PS4, Xbox Series X/S, Xbox One, PC & legacy consoles. Take your gaming to another level with SCUF® controllers!

edit: I guess this is an old total, cause they put out a press release in late 2019 about their 150th patent.
Yes? Innovative companies tend to be proud of their patents. Lots of large companies even offer rewards for employees who submit and get valid patents approved.
 

DeadlyVenom

Member
Apr 3, 2018
2,763
1...2...3...4...5... Okay, they just made that $4 million back.

But honestly, I wonder how much this prevents other people from adding back buttons? Microsoft seemed willing to pay, but I bet many aren't.
 

TheGhost

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
28,137
Long Island
I agree it seems like a dumb, overly vague patent. If it were the specific type of back buttons with the paddles I could see that, but Valve's implementation was entirely different.

At least it's a company selling a product that won the lawsuit. I was expecting a troll sitting on a patent.
Microsoft's are totally different than scuffs but still paid the price.
 

Gentlemen

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,497
What nonsense. The n64 controller had back buttons for goodness sake
not in the sense that the patent describes as being operable by the middle fingers. You still pressed nintendo Z buttons with your index finger. The steam controller's back paddles seem made exactly as described in the patent, on the other hand.
 

Gentlemen

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,497
In case people want to read the patent instead of making more 'nintendo 64' remarks:


xI0EGNm.jpg


It doesn't just describe a button on the back of a controller, but the manner of operation for that button. This is exactly what Valve ignored before releasing their controller. You don't have to like it but the N64 pad is not a strong case for prior art.
 

Betelgeuse

Member
Nov 2, 2017
2,941
That's like... the point of a patent.
Pretty much.

But worth noting there is case law (see McRO v. Bascom) that limits an applicant's ability to preempt others from practicing an invention on a more general and conceptual level, and instead encourages applicants to move toward more specific implementations.

In case people want to read the patent instead of making more 'nintendo 64' remarks:


xI0EGNm.jpg


It doesn't just describe a button on the back of a controller, but the manner of operation for that button. This is exactly what Valve ignored before releasing their controller. You don't have to like it but the N64 pad is not a strong case for prior art.
Are you looking at the abstract or the claims? Claim 1 reads:

1. A hand held controller for a game console comprising: an outer case comprising a front, a back, a top edge, and a bottom edge, wherein the back of the controller is opposite the front of the controller and the top edge is opposite the bottom edge; and a front control located on the front of the controller; wherein the controller is shaped to be held in the hand of a user such that the user's thumb is positioned to operate the front control; and a first back control and a second back control, each back control being located on the back of the controller and each back control including an elongate member that extends substantially the full distance between the top edge and the bottom edge and is inherently resilient and flexible.

I'd actually argue this is a fairly narrow claim ("each back control including an elongate member that extends substantially the full distance between the top edge and the bottom edge and is inherently resilient and flexible"), so at the moment I don't feel terribly sympathetic toward Valve. In fact, this limitation would be quite easy to design-around, so I'm not sure what Valve's excuse is here.

Then again, there's that damn word ("substantially"), so I think reasonable minds can disagree here.
 
Last edited:

Lork

Member
Oct 25, 2017
843
Is this the actual reason why none of the new standard controllers have paddles? What a waste if so.
 

Shoshi

Banned
Jan 9, 2018
1,661
But they use the design of Xbox and PS which is really SCUmmy Fffff!

I would love to try their controllers but there are no local shops in EU where you can try the differences AFAIK.
That inflatable arms cushion is also really interesting.
Looking forward to their Dual Sense variant. Or maybe Sony has prepared their patents preventing SCUF this time.
 

Fisty

Member
Oct 25, 2017
20,180
That's like... the point of a patent.

Like, is the concept of a button on the back of a controller something that should able to be patented? Maybe SCUF's specific application, but come on this is silly. This would be like MS having to pay Sony because they put a Share button equivalent on the Xbox controller
 

Theswweet

RPG Site
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
6,397
California
Looking at the patent itself, I actually can see why Valve might've thought they were in the clear? The way the Steam controller handles paddles, is it's just extensions of the backplate that pops off when you need to replace batteries. It's distinct enough that I could see them trying to argue that it does not infringe;

steamcontrollerback.jpg
 

Sheng Long

Moderator
Oct 27, 2017
7,590
Earth
Like, is the concept of a button on the back of a controller something that should able to be patented? Maybe SCUF's specific application, but come on this is silly. This would be like MS having to pay Sony because they put a Share button equivalent on the Xbox controller

Prob not, but... somehow they did.
 

Bizzquik

Chicken Chaser
Member
Nov 5, 2017
1,503
Wow, I feel ignorant.

Is this the reason why Microsoft and Sony did not release Back Buttons for the Series X|S and PlayStation 5...?

Is this why we just get the Elite controller back button optional attachments and PS4 Back Button sold-separately attachment? ....To avoid having legal trouble or paying royalties with Scuf...? (Or, at least, to minimize the amount of the royalty payout versus the pack-in controller.)
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,016
Every controller is made of patents that the platform holders don't own themselves.

I wonder if Sony gets around this by having an attachment since the attachment itself is not the controller.
 

Pargon

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,967
The 2nd article isn't fully available, but from reading some discussion on it, SCUF may have set a precedent of being able to go after anyone using direct or indirect back buttons on controllers that aren't paying them licensing, like the expensive Xbox Elite controller did. Unfortunately this may mean a new Steam controller is less likely to come out, and baseline grip / paddle buttons for console controllers are probably less likely to be a thing, especially with SCUF seemingly holding onto patents for 10+ more years to sell their expensive controllers.
This is utter bullshit.
Firstly, there is prior art for buttons on the back of controllers.

The original Gravis Xterminator back in ~1997:
gravis-xterminator-h4kxq.png
c0004568_162407gkjqi.jpg


The Gravis Xterminator force, which I would say is closer to having "back buttons" than "grip buttons" if you are trying to make that distinction:
s-l1600msjw2.jpg
s-l160061kfo.jpg


You could probably argue that the N64 controller applies too.

You want to patent levers on the back of a controller?
Meet the AlphaGrip:
12i9k5s.jpg


I looked over SCUF's patents when I heard about this some time last week, and their patent describes a specific mechanism which does not apply to the Steam Controller design.
It describes a vertical paddle system as part of the back of the controller, while the Steam Controller's back buttons are actuated horizontally and are a part of the controller's grip design rather than the 'back' of the controller.

But I'm sure that Valve themselves would have argued this - so I'm not sure why the case would have been decided in SCUF's favor.
If anything, it shows how bullshit America's patent system is, if the vaguest of similarities can be ruled in SCUF's favor, despite prior art for the idea of buttons/levers on the back of a controller, and the design used on the Steam Controller being different from the one that SCUF patented.
I hope this can be appealed and ruled in Valve's favor.

It doesn't just describe a button on the back of a controller, but the manner of operation for that button. This is exactly what Valve ignored before releasing their controller. You don't have to like it but the N64 pad is not a strong case for prior art.
The grip buttons on the Steam Controller do not operate the same way as SCUF's paddle design though.
 

Vilam

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,053
I swear to god if I don't get a PS5 back button attachment I'm going to be extremely unhappy.
 

Madjoki

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,230
Wouldn't the license be chump change for valve? Surprised they're litigating this if Microsoft clearly thought it wasn't worth the billable hours

Ironburg wanted $7 per controller, so it probably would've made Steam Controller prohibitively expensive (it was sold at loss @ $50).
Jury granted only $2.5 per controller so technically Valve saved a lot of over license. (but lawyers fees probably negate that).
That's even less than Microsoft rate of about $3.8 per controller (though which does include all patents from SCUF, unlike Valve's just back button).

Looking at the patent itself, I actually can see why Valve might've thought they were in the clear? The way the Steam controller handles paddles, is it's just extensions of the backplate that pops off when you need to replace batteries. It's distinct enough that I could see them trying to argue that it does not infringe;

steamcontrollerback.jpg

That's was one of Valve arguments. Ironburgs counter argument was it still violates because it's flexible and does not break when using (or at least Valve did not prove it breaks when using) which sounded very silly to me.
 

SigSig

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,777
Expectation: Patents will allow us to boldly innovate!
Reality: Due to patents, the future is always on hold for the next X years
 

RCSI

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
1,838
Add another thing onto the "They were able to patent that!?" pile. I'm just glad I was able to pick up my controller for $5.