fatslob-:O on 14 August 2017
| Insidb said: Well, this actually could be excellent news for Gamevice: if Nintendo filed in the middle of 2016, it means that there is an extremely high probability of prior art that was in its latency period. If Nintendo had been issued a patent with granted claims by the USPTO, that would be a very different story. Two important considerations here are 1) a "filed" patent is not an "issued" patent and can't be used to assert anything in court and 2) the USPTO is notorious for having issues with prior art searches, so many issued patents are later invalidated. |
I concur plus it also doesn't hurt that Gamevice filed a patent which is granted ...
