Nintendo sued for patent infringement

[GamesLaw]

http://www.gameslaw.net/2008/08/20/wiimote-vs-the-loop-nintendo-sued-for-patent-infringement-again/


Gameslaw has the complaint and exhibits. Not sure if GP will pick this up or not, so figured I'd post here. Also, Gameslaw is looking for new staff writers, should any of you be interested.

[GamesLaw]

The interesting thing is that the controller in question, "the loop" looks nothing at all like the Wii remote.

[beemoh]

Hi Dan.

Great article, and I'm going to leave it up since it's relevant, but if you're going to stick around, please contribute more to the forum than just links to your own site.

Thanks, and welcome to the forums.

[GamesLaw]

Hi Dan.

Great article, and I'm going to leave it up since it's relevant, but if you're going to stick around, please contribute more to the forum than just links to your own site.

Thanks, and welcome to the forums.

Absolutely. I'm a fairly frequent contributor to GP thread comments, just relatively new to the forums.

[ZippyDSMlee]

All this makes the IP/patent issues and loop holes more apparent.

[kurisu7885]

Funny how all these came about after the Wii and DS became popular, and after trying something a little different.

[ZippyDSMlee]

Funny how all these came about after the Wii and DS became popular, and after trying something a little different.

It could be argued that with all thats going on in the world and life one dose not find infringement until something is popular.

[GamesLaw]

It could be argued that with all thats going on in the world and life one dose not find infringement until something is popular.

True. Arguably, Hillcraft might not have ever known of any alleged infringement if it were some unpopular game platform, such as the NGage.

[ZippyDSMlee]

True. Arguably, Hillcraft might not have ever known of any alleged infringement if it were some unpopular game platform, such as the NGage.

And then there's the whole good solid idea thats a natural evolution of things I forget how its worded in the patent legal lingo but there comes a time when original ideas are so like you can't say which came first and who influenced what.

[GamesLaw]

And then there's the whole good solid idea thats a natural evolution of things I forget how its worded in the patent legal lingo but there comes a time when original ideas are so like you can't say which came first and who influenced what.

The patented product has to be a substantial improvement on its predecessors, if that's what you're referring to. You can't take the Wii remote, and add an additional screw that does nothing to it, and call it an improved model, and patent that.

[ZippyDSMlee]

The patented product has to be a substantial improvement on its predecessors, if that's what you're referring to. You can't take the Wii remote, and add an additional screw that does nothing to it, and call it an improved model, and patent that.

But can you take a the basic idea of a motion PC mouse and mix it with console gaming to produce the wiimote, dose this natural evolution of the creative process hit a patent wall?

[GamesLaw]

But can you take a the basic idea of a motion PC mouse and mix it with console gaming to produce the wiimote, dose this natural evolution of the creative process hit a patent wall?

No, because it's a substantially new creation. The barrier is way lower than that... for instance, if someone could figure out how to make the Wii Remote work without the light bar (I'm not sure exactly what it is called), that would likely qualify as an improvement for patent purposes (whether it can do so without infringing on the Wii Remote's original patent, however, is another story).

The classic example is a chair with three legs. Zippy comes along and says in Zippy-speak :) "ohlookachairwith 3legsawesomebutitwouldbebetter if ithad4 legs!"(Sorry to make fun of you Zippy, but you can be hard to read!). So Zippy goes and makes a chair with 4 legs, something that's never been done before. Voila. Zippy has improved upon the three leg chair, but he is (probably) infringing the original patent because it is still based on the same design of chair.

So it's something that's really hard to do, and that's where the key issues for Nintendo's case are going to come into play: namely, how is the Wii Remote different than the Loop (other than looks). The other key is going to be who testifies (assuming this goes to trial, which I have doubts it will, especially with Nintendo's recent NPD numbers), since patent improvement cases rely on a "person skilled in the art" standard. Don't ask me to go much further beyond that, because I am not a patent expert, I tend to stick to copyright and trademark issues. ;)

[ZippyDSMlee]

No, because it's a substantially new creation. The barrier is way lower than that... for instance, if someone could figure out how to make the Wii Remote work without the light bar (I'm not sure exactly what it is called), that would likely qualify as an improvement for patent purposes (whether it can do so without infringing on the Wii Remote's original patent, however, is another story).

The classic example is a chair with three legs. Zippy comes along and says in Zippy-speak :) "ohlookachairwith 3legsawesomebutitwouldbebetter if ithad4 legs!"(Sorry to make fun of you Zippy, but you can be hard to read!). So Zippy goes and makes a chair with 4 legs, something that's never been done before. Voila. Zippy has improved upon the three leg chair, but he is (probably) infringing the original patent because it is still based on the same design of chair.

So it's something that's really hard to do, and that's where the key issues for Nintendo's case are going to come into play: namely, how is the Wii Remote different than the Loop (other than looks). The other key is going to be who testifies (assuming this goes to trial, which I have doubts it will, especially with Nintendo's recent NPD numbers), since patent improvement cases rely on a "person skilled in the art" standard. Don't ask me to go much further beyond that, because I am not a patent expert, I tend to stick to copyright and trademark issues. ;)

Only hard to read? :P

Ok so let me put it like this a design team sees or hears about a motion mouse for PC, and builds their own motion tech through their own R&D in a controller , what now? as long as the patent for the motion tech(sensors,board,ect) is covered there is no infringement is there?

[EightBitJustice]

No, because it's a substantially new creation. The barrier is way lower than that... for instance, if someone could figure out how to make the Wii Remote work without the light bar (I'm not sure exactly what it is called), that would likely qualify as an improvement for patent purposes (whether it can do so without infringing on the Wii Remote's original patent, however, is another story).

The classic example is a chair with three legs. Zippy comes along and says in Zippy-speak :) "ohlookachairwith 3legsawesomebutitwouldbebetter if ithad4 legs!"(Sorry to make fun of you Zippy, but you can be hard to read!). So Zippy goes and makes a chair with 4 legs, something that's never been done before. Voila. Zippy has improved upon the three leg chair, but he is (probably) infringing the original patent because it is still based on the same design of chair.

So it's something that's really hard to do, and that's where the key issues for Nintendo's case are going to come into play: namely, how is the Wii Remote different than the Loop (other than looks). The other key is going to be who testifies (assuming this goes to trial, which I have doubts it will, especially with Nintendo's recent NPD numbers), since patent improvement cases rely on a "person skilled in the art" standard. Don't ask me to go much further beyond that, because I am not a patent expert, I tend to stick to copyright and trademark issues. ;)

Well, yes and no. To be patentable, the invention has to be non-obvious. If the improvement is obvious to someone competent in the current state of the art (meaning, say, she could combine two prior related patents to create the device in question) then the device is unpatentable.

Also, I think you kind of buried an important part to this equation, Dan. If we are talking about an improvement patent, even if the patent issues, it may not be useable without infringing the original patent it is based on. So if the Wii Remote is an improvement on the claims in the Loop patent, Nintendo would still need a license from the Loop in order to use that technology in the Wii Remote.