By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Lawsuit filed against Nintendo over Switch’s detachable controllers

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 ... 



Around the Network
Nuvendil on 14 August 2017
Insidb said:
SpokenTruth said:

Good luck GameVice.

 

Credit goes to Rösti for compiling.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1325344

*Architecture=System floor plan (limited)

On June 10, 2016, Nintendo Co., Ltd. filed in the US via the United States Patent and Trademark Office several patent applications related to Nintendo Switch. They were published today December 15, 2016. The applications are:

Appl. No. 15/178972, GAME CONTROLLER
Appl. No. 15/178991, GAME CONTROLLER
Appl. No. 15/179011, GAME CONTROLLER
Appl. No. 15/178984, SUPPORTING DEVICE, CHARGING DEVICE AND CONTROLLER SYSTEM
Appl. No. 15/179022, INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM, INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, CONTROLLER DEVICE AND ACCESSORY

 

Inventors: IWAO; Toshiaki; (Kyoto, JP) ; TAKEI; Masaya; (Kyoto, JP) ; FUJITA; Kumpei; (Kyoto, JP) ; IKUTA; Hiroki; (Kyoto, JP) ; HIROSE; Shinji; (Kyoto, JP) ; AKAMA; Tetsuya; (Kyoto, JP) ; TSUCHIYA; Hitoshi; (Kyoto, JP)
Applicant: NINTENDO CO., LTD.
Kyoto
JP
Family ID: 1000002022311
Appl. No.: 15/178984
Filed: June 10, 2016
Abstract

/snip
Claims

1. A game controller supporting device for supporting a first game controller and a second game controller, wherein: the first game controller includes a first rail member configured for allowing the first game controller to be attached to the supporting device; the second game controller includes a second rail member configured for allowing the second game controller to be attached to the supporting device; the supporting device includes: a support section; and a main section connected to the support section; the support section includes: a first slide member in an area of the support section toward a first side in a predetermined direction, the first slide member being configured to slidably engage with the first rail member of the first game controller in a first slide direction; and a second slide member in an area of the support section toward a second side in the predetermined direction, the second slide member being configured to slidably engage with the second rail member of the second game controller in a second slide direction; the first slide member includes: a first groove having a bottom surface formed along the first slide direction; a first facing surface, wherein the first slide member has a first side and a second side in the first slide direction, and the first facing surface is in an end portion on the first side of the first slide member so as to face a portion of the bottom surface of the first groove; and a first terminal on the first facing surface, which first terminal is configured to be electrically connected to the first game controller; the second slide member includes: a second groove having a bottom surface formed along the second slide direction; a second facing surface, wherein the second slide member has a first side and a second side in the second slide direction, and the second facing surface is in an end portion on the first side of the second slide member so as to face a portion of the bottom surface of the second groove; and a second terminal on the second facing surface, which second terminal is configured to be electrically connected to the second game controller; the main section includes: a first grip portion on a first side of the main section in the predetermined direction configured for being gripped by a user; and a second grip portion on a second side of the main section in the predetermined direction configured for being gripped by the user; the support section includes: a connector; a power supply configured to supply power, via the connector, to the first game controller via the first terminal, and to the second game controller via the second terminal; and a light-emitter configured for emitting light indicating that the power supply is supplying power to at least one of the first game controller and the second game controller; the first game controller includes a first stop member, wherein the first stop member is configured so that when the first rail member has been inserted up to a predetermined first position into the first slide member, the first stop member resists a slide movement, in an opposite direction, of the first rail member against the first slide member, the opposite direction being a direction opposite to a direction in which the first slide member is insertable into the first rail member; the first slide member includes a first stop-receiving portion, wherein the first stop member is further configured so that when the first rail member of the first game controller has been inserted up to the first position into the first slide member, the first stop member engages with the first stop-receiving portion; the second game controller includes a second stop member, wherein the second stop member is configured so that when the second rail member has been inserted up to a predetermined second position into the second slide member, the second stop member resists a slide movement, in an opposite direction, of the second rail member against the second slide member, the opposite direction being a direction opposite to a direction in which the second slide member is insertable into the first rail member; and the second slide member includes a second stop-receiving portion, wherein the second stop member is further configured so that when the second rail member of the second game controller has been inserted up to the second position into the second slide member, the second stop member engages with the second stop-receiving portion.
BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY

/snip

/snip

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF NON-LIMITING EXAMPLE EMBODIMENTS
/snip

Source: Search "15/178984" at http://appft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html

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. 

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.  



ArchangelMadzz on 15 August 2017

This happens all the time.

Although I recently learned that Nintendo got Sued by a Sony employee who owned the patent they used for Glasses-free 3D screens. He wont the case and got just over 1% of all earned from 3DS sales.. ie. He got a lot of money.



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

Insidb on 15 August 2017
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.



Nuvendil on 15 August 2017
Insidb said:
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.

Issue is, the Wikipad - which is the patent they seem to be referencing predominently - went out of sale in 2013.  Well before the Switch hit market.  And they said themselves, in a public statement, that the new Gamevice detatchable controllers would not have raised the needed 12 mil to begin development without the Switch's influence on the market.  These events create a very clear scenario here where without the Switch, they wouldn't have a market.  When it comes to damages, that would be my argument if I were Nintendo.  They had their shot without the Switch and accomplished nothing, then the Switch came along and NOW they have a shot with their new product.  It's the opposite of damages.  And use their own words to back it up.



Around the Network
CleggaZ on 15 August 2017

Honestly it feels like lawsuits will become a future olympic sport or something at this rate.

Everyone sues everyone else for everything cause reasons.



fatslob-:O on 15 August 2017
SpokenTruth said:

Check that claims list.  It's not even certain what it is.  Game controller or keyboard, metallic input connector or optical, wired or wireless connection, rigid bridge or flexible bridge.

That's a lot of overreach compared to the actual product for sale.  Patent courts don't like that because you could therefore patent a wide range and stifle compeittion with your actual product resembling or utilizing on a small segment of the patent.  The lack of specifity is going to harm them considering the claim items that went into the final product largely differ from Nintendo's Switch.

I did check and from the complaint, Gamevice accuses Nintendo of infringing US Patent No. 9,126,119 ... 

We'll see if the court concludes Gamevice is overreaching or not ... 



fatslob-:O on 16 August 2017
SpokenTruth said:

Yeah, that looks like the same one that you posted earlier but one page is the grant page and the other is the application page.  Has the same data either way.

What Game Vice needs to consider is how close their device is to the Gamepad and other tablet with side controller devices.  It could be argued the Game Vice device is a Gamepad (or similiar device) with a detachable controller interface connecting both sides with a bridge).  If detachability is the key differentiator between the Wii U Gamepad and the Game Vice device, it could be argued that the Joycons independant operation is the key differentiator.

The Game Vice controller unit cannot be used indepentantly of the connecting tablet.  Once detached, it has no function and cannot control action on the tablet.  The joycons are independant of the Switch unit and can function and control the Switch unit once detached.

Just even using one patented function without the other party's consent is grounds for infringement ... 

If Game Vice wins then the ball is obviously in Nintendo's court to pay their fair share of the cut or risk having nonattachable units ... 



Nuvendil on 16 August 2017
fatslob-:O said:
SpokenTruth said:

Yeah, that looks like the same one that you posted earlier but one page is the grant page and the other is the application page.  Has the same data either way.

What Game Vice needs to consider is how close their device is to the Gamepad and other tablet with side controller devices.  It could be argued the Game Vice device is a Gamepad (or similiar device) with a detachable controller interface connecting both sides with a bridge).  If detachability is the key differentiator between the Wii U Gamepad and the Game Vice device, it could be argued that the Joycons independant operation is the key differentiator.

The Game Vice controller unit cannot be used indepentantly of the connecting tablet.  Once detached, it has no function and cannot control action on the tablet.  The joycons are independant of the Switch unit and can function and control the Switch unit once detached.

Just even using one patented function without the other party's consent is grounds for infringement ... 

If Game Vice wins then the ball is obviously in Nintendo's court to pay their fair share of the cut or risk having nonattachable units ... 

That's not how it works.  See the Tesla bulb circa 1893.



fatslob-:O on 16 August 2017
Nuvendil said:

That's not how it works.  See the Tesla bulb circa 1893.

That's exactly how it works ... 

Just because your product offers other functionality does not mean you are not infringing on a patent ... 

Being a superset is not subject to the denial of persecution ...