There are some curious statements in this thread. First, this doesn't seem to be a "patent troll", not if they have an actual product. Second, this isn't about who did what first. It's about patents, pure and simple. If they have the patents and can prove that Nintendo infringed upon them then they have a case. It doesn't matter if Nintendo ever heard of them before or not.
| Slarvax said: "The company is looking to be compensated for damages and a ban on Switch sales." I mean, look man. You want money for the possibility that Nintendo did a similar product to yours, that's cool. But a ban on Switch sales? Like, do you really want to go on a legal battle vs Nintendo? When was the last time Nintendo lost one of these? |
They lost earlier this year in Japan regarding the go-cart thing, they lost to Phillips, and they lost over the 3D part of the 3DS. That's off the top of my head.
In this kind of case, the skill of the filing legal team matters the most--along with the jurisdiction where it was filed.
Edit: and the ban thing almost never happens beyond a temporary freeze. It's there to put pressure on the other side. The real goal is a settlement.
