Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nintendo Faces Switch Patent Infringement Investigation In the US (engadget.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the cease-and-desist dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Engadget: Nintendo is under investigation by the U.S. International Trade Commission, and the fate of the Switch hangs in the balance. Gamevice, the company behind the Wikipad and a line of snap-on controllers for mobile devices, says the Nintendo Switch violates its patents on attachable handheld gamepads and their related accessories. Alleging violations of the Tariff Act of 1930, Gamevice is requesting a cease and desist order against Nintendo, a move that would halt imports of the Switch into the U.S. The USITC notes that while its investigation has begun, it hasn't ruled on the validity of the complaint. The commission will hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Nintendo is in violation of the Tariff Act, with a final decision "at the earliest practicable time." The USITC will announce a target date for the end of the investigation within 45 days.

63 comments

  1. From Wikipedia... by ELCouz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In August 2017, Gamevice filed a patent lawsuit in California against the Nintendo Switch for alleged patent infringement.[1]. They would later dismiss the lawsuit voluntarily in October of the same year.

    What happening now?

    1. Re:From Wikipedia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nintendo promised money if it didn't go to court.

      Nintendo didn't pay, obviously.

    2. Re:From Wikipedia... by ELCouz · · Score: 2

      Agree..really looks like Gamevice was waiting for the check to come by.

    3. Re:From Wikipedia... by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 5, Informative

      Gamevice filed a second suit in California on March 29 of this year alleging infringement of two patents different than the one they asserted in the 2017 case. They then filed the ITC complaint a day later based on the same two patents.

      That's a common play for big competitors. As the summary says, the ITC can issue an exclusion order so the products physically can't enter the U.S. anymore. That's an extreme remedy that became a lot harder to get in a federal court around a decade ago, so the ITC has become a lot more popular forum. But you can't get money damages in the ITC, so patentholders often file parallel suits in both forums. The federal court case will be stayed (put on hold) while the ITC investigates, and then after the stay is lifted Gamevice can litigate in federal court for money damages.

  2. Patent troll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All controller have always been attachable by a cable. In terms of input there is nothing revolutionary here. Attaching a battery is prior art. Attaching a camera like some Gameboys could is prior art. Hell a basic laptop should be prior art once the keyboard is interfaced, but then isn't that how early computers were in the first place.

  3. Asian can't innovate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No surprise.

  4. Eh prior art... by Ecuador · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Gamevice probably dismissed their lawsuit voluntarily because they have a patent filed in 2013 and not only it is quite different from the Switch (it is a single piece), but it is also very similar to things that preceded it, most obviously the Razor Edge which was released about the time they filed their patent (coincidence?).

    Now idea how that new avenue they are seeking though ITC works... Wish them luck - very BAD luck.

    Not that I wouldn't enjoy small companies sticking it to the big guys, but patent abuse is bad either way.

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:Eh prior art... by tempmpi · · Score: 2

      There should be even earlier examples of prior art, e.g.
      a gamepad for a PalmOS PDA from 2000.

      --
      Jan
    2. Re:Eh prior art... by Ecuador · · Score: 1

      Yeah, there's tons of prior art, especially for "one-piece" add-ons. For example check out the MSI BGP100 that I had bought back in 2005.

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    3. Re:Eh prior art... by Hodr · · Score: 1

      *Ahem*
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    4. Re:Eh prior art... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      *Ahem*
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      The Intellivision is clearly not even close to relevant here. Those are just normal controllers stored on top of the unit, it's not meant to be used with the controllers on it. You can tell that's true both because of their design and because of the orientation in which they are stored. Don't be a dope.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Eh prior art... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't even need prior art. Stuff like this should not be patentable in the first place.

    6. Re:Eh prior art... by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      What? Someone is making money? Quick! scour our patents for something obscure we can use to milk money from them!

      The whole idea about patents was to *make money* with an invention for some period of time. Doing a quick search on Gamevice and looking at their site, they don't look to have anything above and beyond what Moga, Pyrus and a slew of others have made for android/iphone. The difference here is a phone is inserted into the controllers, almost like two partial cases that only wrap around a fraction of an inch on either side. The Switch uses a sliding/locking mechanism to create one (mostly) seamless device.

    7. Re:Eh prior art... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, Mr. Lawyer. And yes, you can use the controllers IN the device if you got the computer attachment for it, but don't be a dope, right?

  5. That's RAZER by Ecuador · · Score: 1

    That's Razer Edge obviously, but Apple devices like to correct things because they know better ...

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re: That's RAZER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They know better than to buy an Apple device.

  6. They what now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Connecting a handheld controlling device to a display is patentable now?

    Gosh, I wonder what other incredible innovations this obviously famous and relevant company named Gamevice (?) could bring to humanity if they win money in the lawsuit.

    1. Re: They what now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finish the words. I'll start:

      Creimer...

    2. Re: They what now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is...

    3. Re: They what now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A...

    4. Re: They what now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big...

    5. Re: They what now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fat...

    6. Re: They what now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asshole...

    7. Re: They what now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And...

    8. Re: They what now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Loves...

    9. Re:They what now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To...

    10. Re: They what now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck...

    11. Re: They what now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Men...

    12. Re: They what now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In...

    13. Re: They what now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The...

    14. Re: They what now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asshole.

    15. Re: They what now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good shit everyone. Thank you for playing.

  7. Prior art is now irrelevant in the U.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since the U.S. changed from "first to invent" to "first to file" system, it doesn't matter if someone else came up with the idea. The first party to file a patent for it will be awarded with a patent.

    1. Re:Prior art is now irrelevant in the U.S. by slew · · Score: 2

      Since the U.S. changed from "first to invent" to "first to file" system, it doesn't matter if someone else came up with the idea. The first party to file a patent for it will be awarded with a patent.

      Prior art is (and always has been) relevant to getting a patent invalidated. First to file vs first to invent is the thing that changed and basically means prior art isn't prior art if it isn't published.

    2. Re:Prior art is now irrelevant in the U.S. by GoRK · · Score: 1

      It does still matter; prior art is not an affirmative defense to a patent suit but it is useful in attempting to invalidate those patents in a separate action.

    3. Re: Prior art is now irrelevant in the U.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prior art is (and always has been) relevant to getting a patent invalidated. First to file vs first to invent is the thing that changed and basically means prior art isn't prior art if it isn't published.

      Huh? It's always been the case that prior art isn't prior art if it isn't published. That's what the 'art' bit means.

    4. Re: Prior art is now irrelevant in the U.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prior art is (and always has been) relevant to getting a patent invalidated. First to file vs first to invent is the thing that changed and basically means prior art isn't prior art if it isn't published.

      Huh? It's always been the case that prior art isn't prior art if it isn't published. That's what the 'art' bit means.

      This.

      A patent is a reward for donating an invention into the public domain. You cannot keep the secret and then prevent others who do disclose from making that profit.

      The first to file vs first to invent only relates to resolving overlapping patent applications.

    5. Re: Prior art is now irrelevant in the U.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A patent is a reward for donating an invention into the public domain.

      I don't think that word means what you think it means. A patentable item isn't in the public domain otherwise patent owners wouldn't be able to license them or charge royalties. A patent is to register a piece of technology to a particular entity (company or person) as the originator or owner of that technology and, unlike Copyright, has a limited time for which licenses/royalties can be charged.

    6. Re: Prior art is now irrelevant in the U.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong.
      Under first to invent, you could keep it a secret and then take over a patent someone else held.

    7. Re: Prior art is now irrelevant in the U.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think that word means what you think it means. A patentable item isn't in the public domain otherwise patent owners wouldn't be able to license them or charge royalties. A patent is to register a piece of technology to a particular entity (company or person) as the originator or owner of that technology and, unlike Copyright, has a limited time for which licenses/royalties can be charged

      No, it is exactly as was said. The reward for the inventor is exclusive rights for a limited term. The reason why is so that the public domain is enriched by the disclosure of the invention.

      It is not comparable to copyright. The alternative is a trade secret.

    8. Re: Prior art is now irrelevant in the U.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed you are wrong. You have to either patent, implement, or disclose. Unless you take singer action before the other patent is granted you will lose all rights to that invention.

    9. Re: Prior art is now irrelevant in the U.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was the intention of patents, but IP holders have a different definition of "limited".

  8. Patent number by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Informative

    The patent is 9,126,119. Not sure how this is different than a portable keyboard and mouse on a tablet, but I didn't read the primary claim too carefully.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:Patent number by jrumney · · Score: 1

      The numbering on the claims is all screwed up. It seems they removed one at some stage, and forgot to update the references - with the result that they probably haven't patented what they think they did. In particular, where the communication port is wireless, they have only specifically protected it for the case where the communication port is fibre optic. Of course it should theoretically still be covered under claim 1, but that is going to be a more difficult case for them to argue, as it will come down to whether the court accepts that the word "attached" does not have to mean physically attached with respect to the communication port. There is also an issue with whether the controllers on a Switch have the structural bridge described in the patent. It could be argued that the screen case itself is the structural bridge, but it is described throughout the patent as a separate structure which detaches with the controllers, and appears in the drawings as such - either wrapping around the bottom of the screen device, or around the back.

    2. Re:Patent number by zarmanto · · Score: 1

      Thank you for looking up the patent. Based upon that priority date of 2012, and the incredible specificity of the patent, I tend to wonder if perhaps Nintendo could win this based upon prior art for the various sub-components, as I don't see how you can justify a patent which basically amounts to putting Widget A (which has prior art) alongside Widget B (which also has prior art). If the patent amounts solely to combining the two, than that's not much of an innovation; that's just an intuitively logical progression.

      As an example, this is one of the toys from the 70s, which I remember playing with when I was a kid: Tandy home pong game. There's the connected controller "Widget" right there.

  9. SEAL TEAM 6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Assign SEAL TEAM 6 to deal with Patent Trolls.

    Problem solved!

  10. Luckily the US innovates so much ... by thesjaakspoiler · · Score: 1

    ... ow wait...

    1. Re:Luckily the US innovates so much ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US invented the microprocessor you used to post. Show a little respect.

    2. Re: Luckily the US innovates so much ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Patriotism is as foolish as venerating ones inbred ancestors. But then again people pay to wear other people's logos around the place. I guess we can thank America for that one too.

    3. Re:Luckily the US innovates so much ... by bonedonut · · Score: 1

      no time to innovate with all the consuming to do.

  11. They existed way before 2014 by thesjaakspoiler · · Score: 2

    Snap on controllers were far from secret. The patent was filed in 2014 but the first Google search already shows images of such controllers in articles dating back to 2013. Gamevice is just a patent troll going after a big fish rather then going after anyone who violates their alleged patent.

  12. Innovation is fucked by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Honestly.

    I really don't see how someone can invent a new widget, or a process, or a sprocket these days without running afoul of someone else's " idea ".
    Hundreds of millions of people all coming up with " ideas " over the years eventually means there is a limit to the number of original ideas that are out there.
    Because, no matter the method to get there, if the end result is too similar to someone else's result, you're pretty much a litigation target.

    Those who haven't come up with the idea already will have to tip-toe through the Minefield of Lawyers in the hopes their idea isn't covered by some obscure patent, trademark or registration by some guy named Bob who claims to have invented the internet in 1952 :|

     

    1. Re:Innovation is fucked by mangansie · · Score: 1

      Completely agree, sigh.

    2. Re:Innovation is fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly.

      I really don't see how someone can invent a new widget, or a process, or a sprocket these days without running afoul of someone else's " idea ".
      Hundreds of millions of people all coming up with " ideas " over the years eventually means there is a limit to the number of original ideas that are out there.
      Because, no matter the method to get there, if the end result is too similar to someone else's result, you're pretty much a litigation target.

      Those who haven't come up with the idea already will have to tip-toe through the Minefield of Lawyers in the hopes their idea isn't covered by some obscure patent, trademark or registration by some guy named Bob who claims to have invented the internet in 1952 :|

      sadly the patent office will apparently issue ANY patent nomatter WHAT it is about to ANYONE...

      So if you were to patent the color RED tomorrow, you will most likely get the patent and we would all need to pay you a license fee whenever we use that color.

    3. Re:Innovation is fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thankfully, they now have the patent revocation process to undo some of the damage.

    4. Re:Innovation is fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now do you see why China and others are out competing and innovating the US?

      The shitty IP law only exists to prop up dead cash cows: Microsoft, Oracle, Autodesk, the various IAAs, etc. But the cost of doing so isn't just them getting more money. It's also cost us our competitive edge against other countries, which weakens our economy. There's reasons for why China and others will be the next superpower, and one of them is us propping up bad businesses. (Too Big to Fail = Threat to Economy.)

  13. What goes around comes around. by polyp2000 · · Score: 1

    Playstation 3 Controller Lawsuit anyone ?

    --
    Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
    1. Re:What goes around comes around. by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      Nintendo sued Gamevice for patent infringement on the PlayStation 3 controller???

    2. Re:What goes around comes around. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL thanks for the laugh