By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
fatslob-:O on 17 August 2017
Edit Thread
SpokenTruth said:

But it's really not.  If the design has enough variation, it's not infringement.

 

"Direct Infringement: A patent is directly infringed if a product or process incorporates all of the elements of an independent claim of the patent. The independent claim in a patent may have the following format.

1. An apparatus comprising:

   Element A;

   Element B; and

   Element C.

Products that incorporate Elements A, B and C literally infringe Claim 1. Conversely, products that incorporate less than all of Elements A, B and C do not literally infringe Claim 1. For example, a product that incorporates Elements A and B but not C does not literally infringe Claim 1. As such, to avoid literal infringement of a patent, one must not literally practice (i.e., make, use, offer for sale or import) all of the limitations recited in the independent claims of the patent."

http://ocpatentlawyer.com/avoiding-patent-infringement/

 

That means for direct infringement, the Switch would have to violate all 22 sub-sections of Claim 1 in the Game Vice patent.

Gamevice need not prove that Nintendo directly infringed on their patent ... 

They only need to prove that contributory infringement of patents has occured ... 

Just because the defendant stepped on 1 of the 10 defined functions in a plaintiff's patent doesn't mean that the defendent didn't infringe on the patent ...