Is this patent strong?- Novelty video device and method - 8011122

Question

Is patent US 8011122 B2, a Novelty Video Device and Method, valid or could this patent be easily circumvented?

To my understanding the underlying components and software could be completely different from what the Assiognee company, Americhip, is using in its products.

To my reading this patent is for a video module attached to a piece of card stock. The description seems very general. Is there any way to circumvent the patent?

Any knowledge would be greatly appreciated, as you can see I do not know much about patents. Thanks

Claim 1.

An apparatus comprising:

at least a first page and a second page that are movable between a closed position and an open position;

wherein the second page comprises an electronic module having a circuit, the electronic module comprising:

• at least one chip for storing data and for controlling the electronic module;
• a video screen in data communication with the at least one chip;
• a slide tongue extending from the first page to the second page, wherein movement of the first page from the closed position to the open position moves the slide tongue and closes the electronic module circuit such that a first video is shown on the video screen;
• at least first and second push button switches in electrical communication with the chip mounted on the second page, wherein closing of the first push button switch causes a second video to be played on the video screen and closing of the second push button switch causes a third video to be played on the video screen, wherein the first, second and third videos are stored on the chip contemporaneously.

Answer 1

Off hand, it looks like all the claims require a "switch" to determine when a page is turned in order to know what page the reader is on. You might try to design around it by coming up with a way that doesn't use a switch. I put switch in quotations because a study of the specification would be needed to understand how broadly they are using that term. For example, would RFID sensing be a switch? Or under the doctrine of equivalents might it be substituted for a switch?

Very basically, it is the claim words that define what they say is theirs. Generally to get in trouble you need all of the elements they have in a particular claim for that claim to "read on" your thing. If you are planning to do this commercially I'd get real advice from a patent attorney.