| Nuvendil said: Not to mention that the specificity of NINTENDO'S patent is almost a non-issue here. GAMEVICE is the one pursuing action and trying to use their patent to assert control over the functions the Switch provides. So their patent is the one you need to look at. I will say that their on words about how beneficial the Switch's existence was to their own project, enabling them to raise greater funds, etc. works against them in claiming damages as it provides real world tangible evidence supported by the plaintiff themselves that no damages have been inflicted. In fact quite the opposite. |
I agree; things really have to shake out on what Nintendo is granted, etc.
Any good lawyer would hopefully say that Ninendo cost them the greater marker: "that would have been us," etc. I guess they could argue that the damages are the sales differential. which would seem to be the most sensible approach here.
