Nintendo – Page 3 – Patent Arcade

Apr

2016

U.S. Patent No. 8,690,653: Video game systems and methods

U.S. Patent No. 8,690,653: Video game systems and methods

Issued Apr. 8, 2014, to Nintendo Co., Ltd.

Summary:

The ‘653 patent covers multiplayer games in which each player controls a separate character and, under certain conditions, a character may become invincible. Each player uses a separate controller. While a character is invincible, the character responds to a different control scheme than when a character is susceptible to damage.

Abstract:

Example systems and methods relate to a video game in which multiple players each supply inputs to a respective input device to control a corresponding game character in a game world. Movements and actions of each game character are controlled in accordance with respective first game character control operations during the playing of the video game. If one of a plurality of conditions is satisfied by one of the players, the one player’s game character is protected from harm in the game world. Movements and actions of the protected game character are controlled in accordance with a second game character control operation. The protecting of the one player’s game character is stopped in response to one or more protecting stopping conditions, whereby the game character is again controllable in accordance with the first game character control operation.

Illustrative Claim:

1. A method comprising:

while playing a multi-player video game in which multiple players each supply inputs to a respective input device to control a corresponding game character in a game world displayed on a display screen,

controlling movements of each game character in the game world in accordance with respective first game character control operations during the playing of the multi-player video game;

in response to satisfaction of any one of a plurality of conditions by one of the players, protecting the one player’s game character from harm in the game world, wherein the plurality of conditions include both voluntary conditions based on the one player’s inputs and involuntary conditions automatically imposed by the multi-player video game;

controlling movements of the protected game character in the game world; and

stopping the protecting of the one player’s game character in response to one or more protecting stopping conditions, whereby the movements of the one player’s game character in the game world are controllable in accordance with the first game character control operation for that game character.

Jan

2016

U.S. Patent No. 8,491,365: Sports video game with enhanced control features

U.S. Patent No. 8,491,365: Sports video game with enhanced control features

Issued Jul. 23, 2013, to Nintendo Co., Ltd.

Summary:

The ‘365 patent applies to sports video games with battle game aspects. The described game may deal damage instead of awarding points, allowing rounds of play to last longer. An in game character who has taken too much damage or lost too much health may be removed from play or die in the game. The player may use power-ups or different moves to increase the damage dealt by a particular play. The patent focuses on the integration of competitive battle game qualities into traditional sports games.

Abstract:

A battle volleyball or other sports game having both sports and battle game aspects is played between opposing teams. A game object, having at least one associated characteristic, is used in the game. An associated characteristic of the game object is altered based on properly timed player input, the input being timed to coincide with one or more action indicators displayed along a game object movement path. The game object may also negatively affect a health or other game character related parameter of a game character towards which the game object is directed.

Illustrative Claim:

1. A method of playing a battle video game providing a video game play graphical user interface in accordance with instructions executed by at least one processor, the processor providing images for display and changing the images in response to user input, the method comprising:

using the at least one processor, modeling at least one ball;

using the at least one processor, and initiated based on input from a first user, generating
animation for display that shows the ball flying along a trajectory;

using the at least one processor, displaying at least one action indicator along the trajectory of said ball the action indicator having features;

using the at least one processor, accepting further input from the first user and determining timing of the further input relative to when the ball has correspondence with features of the action indicator; and

using the at least one processor, based on the further input from the first user, applying a power boost to the ball while it is flying along the trajectory.

Dec

2015

Cherdak v. Nintendo

Cherdak v. Nintendo of North America, Inc.

United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia

Case No. 2:15-cv-366

Filed August 14, 2015

Plaintiff Erik B. Cherdak is a pro se applicant who sued
Nintendo of America on August 14, 2015. Plaintiff sued Defendant for the
alleged past infringement of his Patent Nos. 5,343,445 and 5,452,269. The
patents-in-suit, entitled “Athletic Shoe with Timing Device,” cover a device for
measuring the amount of time an athletic shoe is in the air, similarly known as a pedometer.

Below is an exemplary claim from
the ’445 patent:

1.
A method for indicating hang time off the ground and in the air during a jump
by a person wearing an athletic shoe, said method comprising the steps:

(a)
sensing, within said shoe, when said shoe leaves the ground during said jump;

(b)
sensing, within said shoe, when said shoe returns to the ground at the end of
said jump; and

(c)
activating a hang time indicator on said shoe during the time interval between
said shoe leaving and returning to the ground as sensed in steps (a) and (b),
respectively, said indicator providing an indication of hang time in a manner
perceptible to said person.

The
‘445 patent issued August 30, 1994, and the ‘269 patent issued September 19,
1995. The filing dates for these patents
were prior to June 8, 1995, when the 1994 Uruguay round of the GATT changed the rules for calculating patent term. Under the old rules, the patents-in-suit expired 17 years from the date of issue or 20 years from
the earliest non-provisional priority date, whichever date is greater.
Therefore, absent mitigating circumstances these patents expired July 6, 2013.

The
accused products are the Nintendo DS “Personal Trainer: Walking” line, which
includes a pedometer for tracking steps and other activities. The device can be
worn on shoes or other articles of clothing.
The accused product also contains software for operating and controlling
the device to allow users to set personal health goals.

In the complaint Plaintiff is asking for royalties for the alleged past infringement by Nintendo.

It is worth mentioning that Erik Cherdak has filed approximately 40 lawsuits for patent infringement of these two patents over the last ten years.

We
will watch for any interesting developments in this case.

Dec

2015

Appeal: Secure Axcess, LLC. v. Nintendo of America Inc.

Secure Axcess,
LLC. v. Nintendo of America Inc.

United States Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Filed December 2,
2015

Case No. 2015-1971

As you may
recall from an earlier post, Secure Axcess had filed suit against
Nintendo of America alleging infringement of U.S. Patent 6,522,309, entitled
“Multiscreen Personal Computer Display Method and Apparatus.” The Western
District of Washington entered a judgment of non-infringement in favor of
Nintendo.

The ‘309
patent is entitled, “Multiscreen Personal Computer Display Method and
Apparatus,” and it relates to a computer with multiple display capability. A
user can simultaneously display documents using a singular processed video data
signal source, on two or more screens. The ‘309 teaches a device termed a
“translative video adapter”, or TVA, which is used on two or more
screens to view and edit documents simultaneously. Secure Axcess asserted
that the Nintendo DS infringes the ‘309 patent with its dual-screen. As
previously reported, the district court found that Nintendo did not infringe
based on a claim construction that the TVA had to be a separate device.

‘309 Patent, Figure 1

Secure
Axcess has now filed an appeal with the Federal Circuit requesting the ruling
be vacated. Secure Axcess is primarily challenging the claim construction used
by the district court. Secure Axcess is arguing that the court improperly
interpreted the claims to include limitations that do not appear in the body of
the claims, and are otherwise inconsistent with Patent Number 6,522,309,
specifically “in holding that 1) the TVA must be a ‘detachable’ device; 2) the
TVA does not implement bidirectional communication, and 3) the TVA only
supports conversion of ‘analog’ video signals when construing the ‘309 patent
claims.” Opening Brief of Plaintiff – Appellant at 3, Nintendo of America v. Secure Axcess, LLC., No. 15-1971 (Fed. Cir.
Dec. 2, 2015).

We will keep you updated regarding future developments.Thanks to Josh Davenport for his assistance in preparing this update.

Nov

2015

1982 Case: Nintendo v. Elcon

Nintendo of America, Inc. v. Elcon Industries, Inc.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division

564 F. Supp 937

Decided October 4, 1982

Plaintiff Nintendo (at the time) was in the coin-operated electronic video game business, and filed suit against defendant Elcon for copyright and trademark infringement. Defendant is in the business of assembly and sale of coin-operated electronic video games and other video game components.

Plaintiff owns the video game Donkey Kong, and the audio-video presentation of the game is covered by plaintiff’s copyright registration. The certificate of copyright registration is prima facie evidence that plaintiff’s Donkey Kong game is protected and that the copyright is valid.

Plaintiff extensively promoted and advertised Donkey Kong throughout the United States. Donkey Kong is an original audio-visual game with proper copyright protection of the characters, obstacles, background, and sequence of the game plays. Plaintiff entered into a licensing agreement with the Japanese corporation Falcon, Inc. in September 1981, which authorized Falcon to produce the game Crazy Kong. Crazy Kong was identical or similar to Donkey Kong. The game was prohibited from being imported into the United States and the license stipulated the game could only be sold within Japan.

Defendant imports the Crazy Kong games into the United States without authorization from the plaintiff, which the court found to be sufficient evidence to constitute copyright infringement. Because defendant did not obtain plaintiff’s authorization for the publication of the Crazy Kong games, plaintiff cannot lose protection for failing to have a copyright notice on the games.

The court granted plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiff showed there was a substantial likelihood of success on the copyright infringement and unfair competition claims.

Nov

2015

Nintendo Patent Application for New Gaming Device

On July 23, 2015, an international patent application (WO/2015/107747) was published for Nintendo. The WIPO application was filed by Nintendo back in October 2014. The application is entitled, “Information Processing System and Information Processing Device.”

The device may be a sleep tracker, which could double as a video game. The application indicates the device may be able to detect a user’s emotions using various sensors.

The abstract of the application is as follows:

This information
processing system comprises a portable terminal. The portable terminal detects
sensor information for assessing a user’s emotions. It would be permissible, as
an example, for the sensor information to be sound information which is detected
by a microphone, or image information which is captured by a camera. The
information processing system assesses the user’s emotions on the basis of the
sensor information. The portable terminal detects the sensor information in a
period when the said portable terminal is in a standby state. As an example,
the said standby state is a state wherein a display of the portable terminal is
off.

We will continue to watch for interesting updates.

Oct

2015

Decided: Secure Axcess, LLC. v. Nintendo of America Inc.

Secure
Axcess, LLC. v. Nintendo of America Inc.

United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington

Filed
July 7, 2014; Decided August 4, 2015

Case
No. 2:14-cv-01013

Secure Axcess filed suit against Nintendo of America S/A alleging
infringement of U.S. Patent 6,522,309. The accused products are
Defendants’ Nintendo DS handheld game consoles.

The ‘309 patent is entitled, “Multiscreen Personal Computer
Display Method and Apparatus,” and it relates to a computer with multiple
display capability. A user can simultaneously display documents using a
singular processed video data signal source, on two or more screens. The ‘309 teaches a device termed a “translative video adapter”, which is used on two or more screens to view and edit documents simultaneously. S/A asserts that Nintendo patent 7,786,997 entitled, “Portable Game Machine and Computer-Readable Recording Medium,” infringes the ‘309 patent with its dual-screen.

Claim 1:

1. A multiple monitor video
display method for use with a computer to produce a real-time display on a
first monitor and a computer user selected predecessory display on a second
monitor and comprising steps of:

processing computer program
data into a ported source of display-ready first processed video data signal;

first intercoupling the
ported source of first processed video data signal and the first monitor;

first displaying the first
processed video data signal on the first monitor as the real time display;

second intercoupling the
ported source of first processed video data signal and a translative video
adapter (TVA) comprising further steps of:

first enabling the computer
user to select a first sample of a first screen portion of the first processed
video data signal second intercoupled with a TVA input port;

first storing first video
data representing the first sample in a first memory;

advancing the computer
program data to usually produce a second screen portion of the first processed
video data signal for updating the real-time display on the first monitor;

first
reading the first stored said first video data from the first memory;

first converting the first
read said first video data signal into a first predecessory video signal; and,

second displaying the first
predecessory video signal on a second monitor as the first predecessory
display.

On August 4, 2015, the court entered a judgment in favor of
Nintendo, finding Defendants did not infringe the ‘309 patent. The judgment was
based on the claim construction order, which was found in favor of Defendants.

In the claim construction order, both parties asked the Court to
construe “translative video adapter”, which is used in Claims 1, 9,
and 13 in the asserted patent. Plaintiff argued the TVA included software
and/or hardware, but the Court declined to adopt this construction. Instead,
the Court agreed with Nintendo that the TVA should be construed to mean an
accessory device. The Court stated, “the term TVA appears in Claims 1 and 9 as a structure – as a physical device to be intercoupl[ed] with data signal and a monitor – not as a function.”

Aug

2015

Nintendo and Tomita back in court over “Offset Presetting Means”

Tomita Technologies USA LLC v. Nintendo Co.

U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York

Case No. 11-cv-04256, Filed June 22, 2011

Case No. 1:14-cv-09560, Filed December 3, 2014

Back in December we covered the Federal Circuit’s opinion in Tomita v. Nintendo, where the Court found that the claim term “offset presetting means” clearly invoked the means-plus-function principles of 35 USC 112 6th par. Tomita sued Nintendo in 2011 over U.S. Pat. No. 7,417,664, “Stereoscopic Image Picking Up and Display System Based Upon Optical Axes Cross-Point Information.” Tomita alleged that Nintendo’s 3DS game system infringed the ‘664 patent with its stereoscopic 3D display system which provided glasses-free 3D images.

The Federal Circuit held that the trial court improperly adopted the claim construction proposed by Tomita’s expert which failed to reference the corresponding structure defined in the specification. The Court remanded the case with instructions that the lower court should properly construe the claim term as limited to the corresponding structures defined in the specification and equivalents thereof, based on the clear invocation of 35 USC 112 6th par.

Per IP Law 360, the parties recently argued their positions on proper construction of the claim terms and the issue of infringement on remand to the trial court. Tomita argued that Nintendo’s 3DS products include the same structures disclosed in the ‘664 patent and that Nintendo’s construction unnecessarily complicated the nature of the structures described therein. Nintendo argued that Tomita’s patent disclosed primitive presetting means and that the 3DS products used very different components.

Tomita originally received a jury verdict in its favor February 21, 2014 awarding them over $30 million in damages. If the trial court finds that Nintendo still infringes the properly construed claims on remand, it is likely that the jury’s damages will remain intact.

Prior to the Federal Circuit’s order, Tomita filed an additional lawsuit against Nintendo on December 3, 2014 based on the newly launched 3DS XL. (SDNY Case No. 1:14-cv-9560). The earlier case against the regular 3DS remains pending after the remand. (SDNY Case No. 1:11-CV-04256).

We will continue to monitor this case and report when the trial court issues its opinion.

Jul

2015

Decided: Quintal Research Group v. Nintendo

Quintal Research Group, Inc. v. Nintendo
of America, Inc.

Case No. 4:13-cv-00888

United States District Court for the
Northern District of California

Filed February 27, 2013; Terminated July
17, 2015

Plaintiff
Quintal Research Group, Inc. filed suit against Defendants Nintendo of America,
Inc. and Nintendo Company Ltd. for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,425,944.
The ‘944 patent, entitled “Computerized Information Retrieval System,” relates
to a portable handheld communication device for rapid retrieval of computerized
information. The device connects with network computer consoles to optimize
data input and output using thumb controls instead of a keyboard.

Quintal
alleged that the location of the thumb-activated controls on Nintendo’s Game
Boy handheld gaming device infringed the ‘944 patent.

Nintendo
argued in its Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement that the “ordinary
meaning of ‘symmetrically arranged’ is ‘mirror image,’ such that the two thumb
controls specified in Claims 1 and 9 must correspond in size, shape, and
position on each side of the display screen of the handheld deck.” Claims 1 and
9 of the ‘944 patent teach the use of two thumb controls that are symmetrically
arranged on each side of the display screen. The court found that one skilled
in the art would understand the “symmetrically arranged” language in ‘944
patent to mean that the thumb controls are mirror images of one another.

On July 17, 2015, this case was terminated with the court’s granting of the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement. The court found that Nintendo’s gaming devices did not infringe the ‘944 patent. The judge stated that the left and right buttons on Nintendo’s Game Boy devices did not infringe the asserted patent because the buttons do not correspond in shape, size, or position on each side of the centerline of the display screen.

Jul

2015

Motiva LLC v. Nintendo Co. Ltd. Case Dismissed

Motiva LLC v. Nintendo Co. Ltd.
United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
Case No. 10-cv-349, Filed March 2, 2010

This case was terminated on June 19, 2014. The parties settled their claims in an out of court settlement agreement. All claims were dismissed with prejudice, and each party is to bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees.

In 2010, Motiva sued Nintendo for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,292,151, entitled “Human Movement Measurement System”. The patent relates to training a user to manipulate the position and orientation of transponders through a movement trajectory. The purpose of the patent is for functional movement assessment for exercise, physical medicine, and rehabilitation.

The case was originally stayed pending the decision in the related ITC case between the two parties. ALJ Rogers granted-in-part Nintendo’s motion to compel the production of documents from Motiva. Motiva asserted the requested documents were privileged, but ALJ Rogers determined Motiva waived its attorney-client privilege when it shared some of the requested information with a business partner.

The ITC investigation was terminated January 4, 2012. The ALJ determined that the violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 has not been found with respect to the ‘151 patent.

The original post can be found here.

Jun

2015

Nintendo Wii Balance Board suit dismissed

Ithaca Ventures k.s. et al. v. Nintendo
of America Inc. et al.

United States District Court, Western
District of Washington

2:14-cv-01512

Filed May 9, 2013

Terminated May 18, 2015

On May 18, 2015,
the lawsuit between Ithaca Ventures and Nintendo was dismissed with prejudice
subject to a settlement agreement.

In May 2013,
plaintiffs Ithaca Ventures k.s. and Ithaca Development, LLC filed suit for
patent infringement of U.S. Patent 6,624,802 against Nintendo of America Inc.
and Nintendo Co., Ltd. The case was originally filed in U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware, and eventually transferred to the Western District of
Washington. The ‘802 patent is entitled “Method
And Device For Detecting Specific States Of Movement Of A User,” and relates to
detecting body movement to generate signals in a data processing system. The
patent was incorporated into the gaming device “Cybersurfer”. When approached
by plaintiffs to incorporate Cybersurfer into Nintendo gaming systems,
defendants claimed they were not interested.

Plaintiffs
alleged that the Nintendo Wii Balance Board infringed the ‘802 patent. The Wii
Balance Board detects one’s movement and position in related to the Wii gaming
system.

Ithaca’s
complaint alleged Nintendo’s Wii Balance Board peripherally infringed on Ithaca’s
‘802 patent. Ithaca withdrew the suit after a German court held that Nintendo’s
Wii Board did not infringe on the Ithaca patent.

Aug

2013

Case Update: Nintendo v. Niu

Nintendo v. Niu

United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington

Case No. c-n10-791k, filed May 11, 2010.

This case
arose from copyright and trademark infringement on the part of Mr. Kevin
Niu. Mr. Niu developed and sold game
copiers for Nintendo’s DS and Wii products.
These copiers allowed purchasers to copy software from a game cartridge
or disc in order to fool the console into thinking that an authorized copy of
the game was being played, rather than a copy.

As of July
14, 2011, a settlement agreement was reached in which Mr. Niu confessed
judgment in favor of Nintendo and authorized the Court to enter judgment in the
amount of $200,000. On August 29, 2011,
the Court entered a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice.

Jul

2013

Case Dismissal Update: Impulse v. Nintendo et. al.

Impulse v. Nintendo
et. al.

United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio

Case No.: 11-CV-02519-JG; filed November 11, 2011

Impulse
originally filed suit against Nintendo, EA, Ubisoft, THQ, Konami, Majesco and
Namco Bandai claiming infringement of patent for an, “interactive system
measuring physiological exertions.” The
complaint outlined that fitness titles such as “EA Sports Active Personal
Trainer” and peripherals such as the “Wii Fit Plus” and the “Wii Balance Board”. On October 23, 2012, the case was dismissed
with prejudice as to all claims against the game developers but without
prejudice as to all claims made by the defendants against Impulse.

Jun

2013

Case Update: ADC v. Microsoft et. al.

ADC Technology v.
Microsoft et. al.

United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington

Case No.: 2:08-cv-10579; filed October 27, 2008.

ADC had
brought suit against Microsoft and Nintendo (Sony was originally included, but
has since been dismissed without prejudice) claiming infringement of its
patents for pay-for-download software over a computer network, including
videogames. The case is currently stayed
until reexamination requests are completed.
ADC is providing bi-annual status updates until these reexaminations are
complete.

We will
continue to monitor this case and update accordingly.

Jun

2013

Case Update: Motvia v. Nintendo

Motiva v. Nintendo

US District Court for the Western District of Washington
(originally Eastern District of Texas)

Case No.: 10-cv-349; filed March 2, 2010 (originally filed
November 10, 2008)

Motiva
originally filed suit against Nintendo for infringing its patent number
7,292,151, which is for a “Human Movement Measurement System”. Aside from the discovery issues pointed out
in a previous update,
the case has not moved forward. The case
is currently stayed until findings are delivered by an investigation being
conducted by the International Trade Commission.

Aug

2012

New Case: Technology Properties Limited LLC et al v. Nintendo Co., Ltd et al

Technology Properties Limited LLC et al v. Nintendo Co., Ltd et al

U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
Case no. 5:2012cv03881 , Filed on July 24, 2012

On July 24, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging Defendants Nintendo Co., LTD and Nintendo of America, Inc. infringe upon three of its patents: Patent No. 5,440,749 (“the ‘749 Patent”) entitled “High Performance, Low Cost Microprocessor Architecture,” Patent No. 5,530,890 (“the ‘890 Patent”) entitled “High Performance, Low Cost Microprocessor,” and Patent No. 5,809,336 (“the ‘336 Patent”), entitled “High Performance Microprocessor having Variable Speed System Clock.” Plaintiffs allege that Nintendo has infringed upon these patents through its products such as the DSi. More specifically, Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that Defendants “encourag[e] and facilitat[e] others to perform actions known by Defendants to infringe with the intent that performance of the actions will infringe” by providing the DSi with a USB input/output interface. This allows peripheral devices to be connected to the DSi that may have “a clock independent of the CPU clock connected to the central processing unit on the microprocessors of the DSi.” Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants have instructed consumers to connect the DSi and peripheral devices in such a way that infringes upon Plaintiffs’ patents. Plaintiffs ask for damages in an amount to compensate Plaintiffs for infringement of the patents and an award of enhanced damages from Defendants’ “willful” infringement, among other things.

This case will be updated as new information becomes available.

Jun

2012

New Case: Shared Memory Graphics, LLC v. Apple Inc.

Shared Memory Graphics, LLC v. Apple Inc. et al

United States District Court,Northern District of California

Case No. 3:10-cv-02475, Filed On June 4, 2010

In June of 2010, Shared Memory Graphics, LLC initiated a lawsuit against Apple, Nintendo, Samsung, and Sony for infringing upon two of its patents. The patents in question, the ‘644 and ‘279 patent, describe a “Shared Memory Graphics Accelerator System.” According to the complaint, the patented graphics accelerator system “enhances performance…by utilizing fast embedded memory in conjunction with off-chip memory without sacrificing the ability to expand the frame buffer size, if desired.” Shared Memory claimed that products such as the Apple iPhone, Nintendo Wii, and Sony PS2, included the infringing technology. For example, Shared Memory asserted that the graphics accelerator systems in Sony products infringe upon its patents because they “incorporate one or more on-chip frame buffer memory elements as well as one or more off-chip frame buffer memory elements.”

In 2011, Sony and Apple reached a settlement with Shared Memory. According to Law360, Shared Memory voluntarily agreed to drop all charges against Nintendo and the judge issued an order granting joint stipulation for dismissal with prejudice on January 11, 2012.

Jul

2011

Nintendo Faces Suit over 3DS

Tomita Technologies USA LLC v. Nintendo Co.
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
Case No. 11-cv-04256, Filed June 22, 2011

A technology company based in Japan and the U.S. brought suit against Nintendo for allegedly infringing on their stereoscopic (3-D) patent with its new 3-D gaming system. According to the complaint, Tomita Technologies was founded by a former Sony engineer, who after retiring from Sony after 30 years, went on to research and invent nearly 70 patents, and over 100 patent applications, since 2002. Among these inventions is U.S. Patent No. 7,417,664 (the ‘664 patent) titled “Stereoscopic Image Picking Up and Display System Based Upon Optical Axes Cross-Point Information.” According to the complaint, the ‘664 patent deals with “technology relating to displaying stereoscopic images on-screen for viewing with the naked eye, i.e., without utilizing glasses or other devices.”

Tomita alleges that Nintendo’s 3DS system, which launched in the U.S. in March, infringes on the ‘664 patent. The 3DS system allows for gameplay featuring real 3-D graphics, with no need for special glasses. According to the Sony website, as cited in the complaint, 3DS achieves this by using two outer cameras to see the world in 3-D, mimicking the human eye. Tomita alleges that Nintendo is willfully infringing on its ‘664 patent in order to make 3DS possible. The complaint does not detail how 3DS, a hand-held gaming system, infringes the patent.

According to the complaint, Tomita applied for the patent in 2003 and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued it in August 2008. This is not the first time Nintendo’s DS series of hand-held systems has attracted attention from other patent litigants. Law360 reports that, in late May, Japan-based Milestone Co. sued the company over the camera lens system its DSi system. And, in February, a Texas patent-holding company accused Nintendo of infringing a patent on motion-sensitive video game controllers.

Jun

2011

News: Nintendo has a Wii patent problem

Case Update:

This case is now closed. On March 7, 2007, plaintiff Interlink filed a voluntary dismissal of the case under FRCP 41(a) 1. Specifically this allows for the plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. In this case Nintendo had not responded to Interlink’s suit with any court filings before Interlink filed the voluntary dismissal.

Original Post:

In today’s economy, it is inevitable that any successful product will result in the filing of at least one lawsuit for patent infringement. Nintendo similarly appears to have its first lawsuit based on the Wii. Interlink Electronics, Inc., owner of U.S. Patent. No. 6,850,221, filed a lawsuit against Nintendo on December 4, 2006, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The lawsuit alleges patent infringement based on Nintendo’s Wii controller.

The ‘221 patent is entitled TRIGGER OPERATED ELECTRONIC DEVICE. We will keep you posted as we learn more regarding this lawsuit. All claims of the ‘221 patent are reproduced below for your own analysis and reading pleasure:

1. A portable, trigger operated pointing device for use with an electronically responsive system, the pointing device comprising: a housing for location at least partly between a first finger and a thumb of a user’s hand, the housing having a generally straight, elongated profile defining a longitudinal axis and having a forward end, a rear end, opposed sides, a top face, and a bottom face, the bottom face including a contoured step positioned medially of the forward and rear ends and transversely of the opposed sides, the contoured step having a first face for generally providing a rest location for the first finger of the user’s hand; an electronic circuit mounted on a board contained within the housing, the board having first and second opposed sides, the electronic circuit including a first switch on the first side of the board, the first switch being responsive to pressure selectively to open and close the electronic circuit such that the electronic circuit generates a first output signal upon operation of the first switch, the electronic circuit further including a second switch on the second side of the board, the second switch being responsive to pressure selectively to open and close the electronic circuit upon operation of the second switch; a first control element mounted with the housing at the first face of the contoured step and operatively connected to the first switch to be responsive to finger pressure such that pressure applied to the first control element causes the first control element to operate the first switch; a second control element mounted with the housing at the top face and operatively connected to the second switch to be responsive to thumb pressure such that pressure applied to the second control element causes the second control element to operate the second switch; and an output signal emitter responsive to an output signal from the electronic circuit to wirelessly emit the output signal for reception by the electronically responsive system.

2. A portable, trigger operated pointing device for use with an electronically responsive system, the pointing device comprising: a housing for location at least partly between an index finger and a thumb of a user’s hand, the housing having a generally, straight elongated profile defining a longitudinal axis and having a forward end, a rear end, opposed sides, a top face, and a bottom face, the bottom face including a contoured step positioned medially of the forward and rear ends and transversely of the opposed sides, the contoured step having a first face for generally providing a rest location for the index finger of the user’s hand; an electronic circuit mounted on a board affixable to the housing within the housing, the board having first and second opposed sides, the electronic circuit including a first switch on the first side of the board, the first switch being responsive to movement of the user’s index finger selectively to open and close the electronic circuit such that the electronic circuit generates a first output signal upon operation of the first switch, and a second switch responsive to movement of the user’s thumb selectively to open and close the electronic circuit such that the electronic circuit generates a second output signal upon operation of the second switch, the electronic circuit further including a second switch on the second side of the board, the second switch being responsive to pressure selectively to open and close the electronic circuit upon operation of the second switch; a first control element affixable to the housing at the first face of the contoured step and provided in communication with the first switch, the first control element operative to respond to pressure applied by the user’s index finger to operate the first switch; a second control element affixable to the housing at the top face and provided in communication with the second switch, the second control element operative to respond to pressure applied by the user’s thumb to operate the second switch; and an output signal emitter affixable to the housing and responsive to output signals provided by the electronic circuit to wirelessly emit the output signals for reception by the electronically responsive system.

3. A pointing device as in claim 2, wherein the second switch is a transducer responsive element.

4. A pointing device as in claim 2, wherein the first control element is located in a position to act as a trigger movable under pressure at least partly towards the rear end, such movement acting to operate the first switch, and the first switch being a mechanical element.

5. A pointing device as in claim 2, wherein the output signal emitter is positioned to transmit in a direction generally along the longitudinal axis from the forward end the output signals provided by the electronic circuit.

6. A portable, trigger operated pointing device for use with an electronically responsive system, the pointing device comprising: a housing for location at least partly between a finger and a thumb of a user’s hand, the housing having a generally straight, elongated profile defining a longitudinal axis and having a forward end, a rear end, opposed sides, a top face, and a bottom face, the bottom face including a contoured step positioned medially of the forward and rear ends and transversely of the opposed sides, the contoured step having a first face for generally providing a rest location for the finger of the user’s hand; an electronic circuit mounted on a board affixable to the housing, the board having first and second opposed sides, the electronic circuit including a first switch on the first side of the board and a second switch on the second side of the board; a first control element affixable to the housing at the first face of the contoured step and provided in communication with the first switch, the first control element operative to respond to movement of the user’s finger to operate the first switch and thereby cause the electronic circuit to provide a corresponding first output signal; a second control element affixable to the housing at the top face and provided in communication with the second switch, the second control element operative to respond to movement of the user’s thumb to operate the second switch and thereby cause the electronic circuit to provide a corresponding second output signal; and an output signal emitter affixable to the housing and responsive to output signals provided by the electronic circuit to wirelessly emit the output signals for reception by the electronically responsive system.

7. A pointing device as in claim 6, wherein the first switch is a mechanical switch and the first control element is operative to respond to pressure applied by the user’s finger to operate the first mechanical switch.

8. A pointing device as in claim 6, wherein the second switch is a transducer responsive element and the second control element is operative to respond to movement of the user’s thumb to cause a change in a condition of the transducer responsive element.

9. A pointing device as in claim 6, wherein the first switch is a transducer responsive element and the first control element is operative to respond to movement of the user’s finger to cause a change in a condition of the transducer responsive element.

10. A trigger operated pointing device for use with an electronically responsive system, the pointing device comprising: a housing for location at least partly between an index finger and a thumb of a user’s hand, the housing having a generally straight, elongated profile defining a longitudinal axis and having a forward end, a rear end, opposed sides, a top face, and a bottom face, the bottom face including a contoured step positioned medially of the forward and rear ends and transversely of the opposed sides, the contoured step having a first face for generally providing a rest location for the index finger of the user’s hand; at least one electronic circuit mounted on a board affixable to the housing, the board having first and second opposed sides, the at least one electronic circuit including a first switch mounted on the first side of the board, the first switch being responsive to movement of the user’s finger selectively to open and close the at least one electronic circuit and thereby generate a first output signal, and the at least one electronic circuit further including a second switch mounted on the second side of the board, the second switch being responsive to movement of the user’s thumb selectively to open and close the at least one electronic circuit and thereby generate a second output signal; a first control element affixable to the housing at the first face of the contoured step and provided in communication with the first switch, the first control element operative to respond to movement of the user’s finger to operate the first switch; a second control element affixable to the housing at the top face and provided in communication with the second switch, the second control element operative to respond to movement of the user’s thumb to operate the second switch; and an output signal emitter affixable to the housing and responsive to output signals provided by the at least one electronic circuit, wherein the output signal emitter is positioned to wirelessly transmit from the forward end a transmitted output signal in a direction generally along the longitudinal axis for receipt by the electronically responsive system.

11. A pointing device as in claim 10, wherein the at least one electronic circuit further includes a third switch mounted on the third side of the board, the third switch being responsive to movement of the user’s thumb selectively to open and close the at least one electronic circuit and thereby generate a third output signal; wherein the pointing device further includes a third control element mounted with the housing at the top face and operatively connected to the third switch to be responsive to thumb pressure such that pressure applied to the third control element causes the third control element to operate the third switch.

12. A pointing device as in claim 1, wherein the second switch is a transducer responsive element and the second control element is operative to respond to movement of the user’s thumb to cause a change in a condition of the transducer responsive element.

13. A pointing device as in claim 1, wherein the electronic circuit further includes a third switch responsive to pressure selectively to open and close the electronic circuit such that the electronic circuit generates a third output signal upon operation of the third switch; wherein the pointing device further includes a third control element mounted with the housing at the top face and operatively connected to the third switch to be responsive to thumb pressure such that pressure applied to the third control element causes the third control element to operate the third switch.

14. A pointing device as in claim 1, wherein the first control element is located in a position to act as a trigger movable under pressure at least partly towards the rear end, such movement acting to operate the first switch, and the first switch being a mechanical element.

15. A pointing device as in claim 1, wherein the output signal emitter is positioned to transmit from the forward end a transmitted output signal in a direction generally along the longitudinal axis.

16. A pointing device as in claim 6, wherein the first control element is located in a position to act as a trigger movable under pressure at least partly towards the rear end, such movement acting to operate the first switch, and the first switch being a mechanical element.

17. A pointing device as in claim 10, wherein the first control element is located in a position to act as a trigger movable under pressure at least partly towards the rear end, such movement acting to operate the first switch, and the first switch being a mechanical element.

18. A pointing device as in claim 17, wherein the second switch is a mechanical switch and the first control element is operative to respond to pressure applied by the user’s finger to operate the second mechanical switch.

Mar

2011

Creative Kingdoms Aims Wand at Nintendo

Creative Kingdoms, makers of the MagiQuest live-action role-playing game, has filed a complaint at the International Trade Commission (ITC) against Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America, Inc., asking the ITC to prevent Nintendo from importing its Wii gaming system and controller.

According to the complaint, Creative Kingdoms operates a 20,000 square-foot attraction in Myrtle Beach, SC. At this attraction, players pay admission and can buy interactive magic wands to play various games. Marketing literature for MagiQuest bills it as the world’s largest live-action RPG, saying that the wands can trigger 200 effects at the facility, and can remember player progress.

Creative Kingdoms accuses Nintendo’s Wii of infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 7,500,917 (“Magical Wand and Interactive Play Experience”), 6,761,637 (“Method of Game Play Using RFID Tracking Device”), 7,850,527(“Magic-themed Adventure Game”) and 7,896,742(“Apparatus and Methods for Providing Interactive Entertainment”). The complaint accuses the Wii console and remote of infringing various claims in these patents. A sample claim is reproduced below from the ‘742 Patent:

1. A toy wand for use in an interactive play environment, the toy wand
comprising: an elongated body having a substantially tubular shape and distal
and proximal ends, said elongated body substantially enclosing an internal
cavity positioned along an axis extending through said distal and proximal ends;
a first tilt sensor and a second tilt sensor disposed within said internal
cavity of said elongated body, said first and second tilt sensors being arranged
in substantially opposing orientations such that at least one of said first and
second tilt sensors is in an inactive state whenever said elongated body is in a
substantially static position and such that a first particular motion of said
elongated body causes or enables each of said first and second tilt sensors to
be in an active state at least momentarily during a duration of said first
particular motion; a memory configured to store a unique identification
associated with the toy wand; and a wireless transmitter electrically coupled to
said first and second tilt sensors and to said memory and located within said
elongated housing, said wireless transmitter being configured to transmit a
first wireless signal in response to said first motion of said elongated body to
one or more reader devices disposed within an interactive play environment to
activate one or more play effects, said first wireless signal further comprising
data indicative of said unique identification.

Next up will be the ITC’s decision on whether to formally institute an investigation. For those unfamiliar with the ITC, take a look here for a summary.

We’ll keep you posted, and thanks for reading.

1 234

Subscribe