[Wii] Nintendo Sued for Patent Infringement

[Haoshiro]

Nintendo Sued for Patent Infringement (http://wii.ign.com/articles/750/750001p1.html)
The Wiimote may not be as unique as we thought.
by Micah Seff

December 8, 2006 - In a surprising turn of events, Nintendo is already the target of litigious action concerning its newly released Wii console. California-based Interlink electronics has filed a complaint against Nintendo for what it has deemed to be a case of copyright infringement over the pointing functionalities of the Wiimote.

Gaming blog Kotaku has obtained a court filing (http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/resources/2006/12/InterlinkvNintendo.pdf), issued by the US District Court of Delaware, which accuses Nintendo of infringing on a patent filed previously by Interlink Electronics. The court filing claims that Interlink Electronics has suffered "loss of reasonable royalties, reduced sales and/or lost profits as a result of the infringing activities of" Nintendo.

http://wiimedia.ign.com/wii/image/article/750/750001/patent-infringement-lawsuit-filed-against-nintendo-20061208112902873.jpg

The claim refers to a patent filed in February, 2005 which refers to a device titled "Trigger Operated Electronic Device." The patent describes the advice as a "trigger operated device in the nature of a pointing device for use with an electronic system such as a computer." The patent continues to describe a device which, on the surface, sounds an awful like the Wii's controller.

The complaint demands that Nintendo be enjoined and restrained from further infringing on the patent, presumably by taking the Wii off the market. Furthermore, the filing demands that the court order Nintendo to pay Interlink three times the assessed damages, including prejudgment interests and attorney fees. Additionally, the plaintiff is demanding a jury trial of any and all issues pertaining to the case.


Well at least Nintendo is making a profit on the hardware... should help them if they have to pay out a lot of money over this.

[Malus]

They aren't going to win....they want nintendo to take the wii off the shelf??? hahaha what a joke.

[balamw]

They aren't going to win....they want nintendo to take the wii off the shelf??? hahaha what a joke.

There are Wiis on shelves? :p

This kind of lawsuit is no joke, just ask Apple and Creative.

B

[Gimzotoy]

Patents are extremely touchy. They are granted for exactly what is listed in the application, and cannot be interpreted beyond the bounds of what's discussed in the patent. As that's the case, they'll never succeed. If you read the patent, Interlink's device has a trigger that operates an IR LED. Nintendo's Wiimote has no IR LEDs, and the trigger has no effect on the IR camera used (buttons are bluetooth). I've actually used the device in question. The round button on top acts like the mouse, its movements encoded into binary, and transmitted through the IR LED to the computer. There is no "pointing at the TV" functionality, it's all button presses.

If you've read how the Wiimote works, you know it works nothing like that. They're requesting a jury trial because they're confident they can obscure the actual workings of the devices from the average person.

[balamw]

If you read the patent, Interlink's device has a trigger that operates an IR LED.
Which patent are you reading? None of the independent claims mention an IR LED only an "output signal emitter" the language used is chosen to allow for different implementations by those of ordinary skill in the art.

I haven't examined the claims in detail, and don't have a Wiimote to compare them to, but the IR limitation is not one that Nintendo would be able to use.

B

[Spanky Deluxe]

Well at least Nintendo is making a profit on the hardware... should help them if they have to pay out a lot of money over this.

That looks like it in itself is an infringement on the phaser from Star Trek!!

[sikkinixx]

I hope Nintendo doesn't ask Sony for advice on how they dealt with their Immersion patent issue :rolleyes:

[pgc6000]

I doubt the lawsuit wins.

[Gimzotoy]

Which patent are you reading? None of the independent claims mention an IR LED only an "output signal emitter" the language used is chosen to allow for different implementations by those of ordinary skill in the art.

I haven't examined the claims in detail, and don't have a Wiimote to compare them to, but the IR limitation is not one that Nintendo would be able to use.

B
Actually, they specifically claim it is an IR LED. "There is an LED device (26) for emitting infra-red output signal to the receiver for operating the computer." It is clearly visible in many of the drawings. The point is that Nintendo's Wii remote does not have an LED emitter. It has an infrared camera that picks up IR signal emitted from the sensor bar. You can point it at a pair of light bulbs and it'll work just fine. The only output of the Wii remote is Bluetooth. You do not control the pointer on the screen using the pressure sensitive button system they describe.

These devices are only as similar as their ultimate goal (pointing). The actual implementations are completely different.

[neonblue2]

And the Wiimote isn't trigger operated, it's battery operated :cool:

[Malus]

And the Wiimote isn't trigger operated, it's battery operated :cool:

Haha, actually, the wiimote acts as a pointer and trigger, but its main function is motion sensors, not point and click though it is one feature....this lawsuit will not win.

[JackAxe]

Isn't that a patent for a toy phaser. :o

That thing is just a remote with a trigger, I hope they end up sucking on their own poo. :rolleyes:

<]=)

[Demon Hunter]

That looks like it in itself is an infringement on the phaser from Star Trek!!

LOL!

[jdechko]

Oh my God, Interlink ripped off whoever invented the IR TV remote :eek: . Seriously, this is more like a TV remote (transmitting IR rather than receiving IR and transmitting bluetooth). I'm so happy to live in the US where everyone sues everyone else for similar (but not exact) ideas.

[iMeowbot]

Actually, they specifically claim it is an IR LED.
That is in the description for the illustration, the actual claims aren't so specific.

[Gimzotoy]

That is in the description for the illustration, the actual claims aren't so specific.

Ah, I missed that. Even barring that, they're still completely dissimilar. Interlink uses a button to move a pointer in 2 dimensions, and then transmits the results of the button press over it's "output emitter". The Wii remote uses a sensor and a pair of external emitters to determine where the remote is in 3D space. The pointer is controlled by its complete position in three-space, not by a button. It even knows how far you are from the emitter.

I could see them perhaps going after wireless controllers that use a typical analog thumbpad, like those on pretty much every other console and the Wii's own nunchuck, if it is used as a pointer. If I was Interlink, I would have started there. Of course, Sony and Microsoft have deeper pockets. Not the best target for a suit of questionable merit.

[balamw]

That is in the description for the illustration, the actual claims aren't so specific.
And the claims are the only thing that counts in the patent. The specification is only there to help clarify what the claims mean, along with the understanding of "those of ordinary skill in the art". The invention need not include all of the elements in any of the figures, but can be of a specific subset of features as the claims here seem to be.

From my cursory glance, the trigger is the key element of the patent and perhaps the pointing capabilities. This is what differentiates from a typical IR remote. Does the Wiimote or Nunchuck have a similar trigger?

B

[Gimzotoy]

From my cursory glance, the trigger is the key element of the patent and perhaps the pointing capabilities. This is what differentiates from a typical IR remote. Does the Wiimote or Nunchuck have a similar trigger?
B

The Wiimote has a single trigger, the Nunchuck has two. Also, the use of the trigger doesn't seem to be defined. However, the second "control element" from Interlink's patent is completely absent from Nintendo's implementation.

Hundreds of infrared devices have triggers, and some even are used for pointing. Anyone can stick an index-finger trigger on a pointing device. Game consoles two generations back have had that capability. The more unique part of the patent involves how they came up with pointing button and its pressure sensitivity. I didn't study patent law, but I am an electrical engineer and if there's any unique idea in this patent it's that button.

[kakkoiimac]

ok...Im a total layman at things like this...so what are the options of the end result? Im guessing either nintendo pays a bunch of money to this dishonest, trying-to-get-something-for-nothing company, or they win and dont worry about it.

we shouldnt be worried about a change in remotes or anything like that should we?

[balamw]

I didn't study patent law, but I am an electrical engineer and if there's any unique idea in this patent it's that button.
Claim 10 might actually be the one they are looking at. Assuming the Wiimote has an index finger trigger underneath and thumb operated buttons on the top. This claim is really quite general, while claim 1 is actually a bit more restrictive.

FWIW, while I have not studied patent law either I have plenty of direct experience with patents (I am an inventor on 7 US patents with a few more applications in the queue). I've also been involved first hand in patent litigation. It's not pretty, fun or cheap.

The application, while only issued in 2005 goes back to 1995 a time when some of this would not have been quite as obvious.

ok...Im a total layman at things like this...so what are the options of the end result? Im guessing either nintendo pays a bunch of money to this dishonest, trying-to-get-something-for-nothing company, or they win and dont worry about it.

we shouldnt be worried about a change in remotes or anything like that should we?

It is far more likely that Nintendo will offer the company a license fee before this ever goes to trial. Either a lump sum (like Apple just did to Creative) or a fee per Wii. Winning through trial will cost Nintendo somewhere around $10M and they are not guaranteed to win. Can they license the patent for less? It's quite doubtful that Nintendo will opt to go for a new controller since the Wiimote is a key selling point for the Wii.

Again note that the patent application goes back 10 years. Why are you assuming the company is being dishonest?

B

[kakkoiimac]

like i said i am a layman to the whole patent thing...but it just seems like nintendo comes up with a good idea that (at least at first) alot of people are really excited about...so this company that has a completely different product and market gets this scent of money and does anything to get some some...but that is just me. I'm all for protect your rights and all...this just seems like...wrong.

but like i said, im not in business and maybe just dont understand...i just hope ninty just keeps puting out with all the sweet games.

[Gimzotoy]

Claim 10 might actually be the one they are looking at. Assuming the Wiimote has an index finger trigger underneath and thumb operated buttons on the top. This claim is really quite general, while claim 1 is actually a bit more restrictive.

The application, while only issued in 2005 goes back to 1995 a time when some of this would not have been quite as obvious.
B

That could be. As patents usually are, it's pretty vague and does appear to cover the physical aspects. Although I still wonder what differentiates the Wii's controllers from those for the other systems in Interlink's mind. They can be used as pointers, have triggers, and thumb-operated buttons. I guess it's probably the visual similarity.

Are claims enforced as a whole, or individually? 10 does appear to cover it since it doesn't specify anything but a device with a circuit and two buttons, one thumb-operated. It says it's used for pointing, but doesn't specify how in any way. It only does so in later claims. They basically patent a trackball in Claim 10.

[balamw]

They basically patent a trackball in Claim 10.
Only if the trackball had a trigger button on the surface opposite the trackball. (i.e. underneath) :p

Since the original patent was applied for relatively long ago, it is probably pretty safe to assume that at least some of the apparently similar devices on the market (like the remotes used with many InFocus projectors) are actually licensed from or made by the company in question.

They have an issued patent and thus the claims are assumed to be valid...

Remember what a patent is all about. It grants the inventors a temporary monopoly on an idea, device or process, During this time (~20 years) only that company can sell make or use the invention in the US, or they can grant a license to someone else.

B

[GFLPraxis]

While I haven't read the comments in this thread, I doubt this is going to be of any affect. Seriously, look at the complaint. They are claiming that Nintendo is violating their patent for a "pointing device". They use completely different technologies and the Wiimote was already in development when they filed the patent so Nintendo didn't copy them...

The company is just making big threats in hope that Nintendo will offer them a big fat settlement.

[840quadra]

Patents are extremely touchy. They are granted for exactly what is listed in the application, and cannot be interpreted beyond the bounds of what's discussed in the patent. As that's the case, they'll never succeed. If you read the patent, Interlink's device has a trigger that operates an IR LED. Nintendo's Wiimote has no IR LEDs, and the trigger has no effect on the IR camera used (buttons are bluetooth). I've actually used the device in question. The round button on top acts like the mouse, its movements encoded into binary, and transmitted through the IR LED to the computer. There is no "pointing at the TV" functionality, it's all button presses.

If you've read how the Wiimote works, you know it works nothing like that. They're requesting a jury trial because they're confident they can obscure the actual workings of the devices from the average person.

I too have used that remote.

It came with a projector we use at work, and is used to control a computer attached to said projector.

It does not even resemble the use of the Wii remote, in feel, looks, or use!

http://images.ciao.com/iuk/images/products/normal/080/InFocus_Remote_control_for_Projector__5466080.jpg

[balamw]

It does not even resemble the use of the Wii remote, in feel, looks, or use!

Unfortunately that matters very little. Don't judge the patent by the existing devices, like all law, patent law is an exercise in language not look and feel or even the diagrams in the patent.

The claims in the patent at hand seems to describe a controller with a pointing device on top and a trigger on the underside, which does seem to resemble the Wii remote. I finally looked it up for more details on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RVL-A-CW.jpg

I sure hope the judge doesn't grant the injunction, 'cause I'd really like to get my hands on a Wii remote to use with Front Row if not the Wii itself.

B

[Gimzotoy]

While I haven't read the comments in this thread, I doubt this is going to be of any affect. Seriously, look at the complaint. They are claiming that Nintendo is violating their patent for a "pointing device". They use completely different technologies and the Wiimote was already in development when they filed the patent so Nintendo didn't copy them...

The company is just making big threats in hope that Nintendo will offer them a big fat settlement.

Unfortunately claim 10 doesn't specify in any way how the pointing occurs. Only that the device points, and has buttons top and bottom. This seems like a trivial enhancement to a standard remote control to me, but the patent was granted.

Also, as balamw noted the patent updates a previous patent filed in 1995, and was itself file in 1997. It would far predate anything Nintendo filed for the Wiimote.

I've used the InFocus remotes at work as well, which are obviously either produced or licensed by this company. They're horrible, if the ones we had were any indication. They don't deserve another penny for such a poor design.

[Buschmaster]

Wow.

Not going to win.

Or else they could come up with a lawsuit for every TV in my house... Looks like a remote to me!

[balamw]

This seems like a trivial enhancement to a standard remote control to me, but the patent was granted.
Putting buttons on both sides of the PCB is a complication most designers would like to avoid, so it probably wasn't quite so trivial in 1995.

The fact that the patent is granted means that it is assumed to be valid until proven invalid in court. Even though in this case, they may have actually filed this continuation of their earlier patent with the Wii remote or maybe a general class of wireless game controllers specifically in mind.

Or else they could come up with a lawsuit for every TV in my house... Looks like a remote to me!
Your TV remotes have a trigger button underneath? Mine don't :p

B

[aidanpendragon]

While I haven't read the comments in this thread, I doubt this is going to be of any affect. Seriously, look at the complaint. They are claiming that Nintendo is violating their patent for a "pointing device". They use completely different technologies and the Wiimote was already in development when they filed the patent so Nintendo didn't copy them...

The company is just making big threats in hope that Nintendo will offer them a big fat settlement.

Looking at the filing via Kotaku (http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/resources/2006/12/InterlinkvNintendo.pdf), it really doesn't seem to turn on the pointing issue, transmitting technologies, etc. - instead, it looks as simple as "this is a patent for a remote control device with a trigger on the front-underside and batteries in the back." See abstract on page 6 of the linked PDF.

That said, I'm sure I've seen plenty of products with a similar design, not by this company. Is it sufficiently non-obvious that they can get a patent?

AND - if you can patent something as simple as the form factor, did Nintendo patent the NES/SNES controller? 'Cause if they did, Sony and everyone else owe them a ton of $$$!

[balamw]

Is it sufficiently non-obvious that they can get a patent?
I'll say it again. They've got the patent, it's granted and thus it is presumed valid. The only way to invalidate it is to go to trial at a cost to Nintendo of somewhere around $10M.

For all we know, any similar devices are already manufactured under license....

Unlike the recent Creative vs. Apple stuff, Nintendo probably doesn't have too many patents they could assert against this company in counter-suits. Apple definitely looked like they had the upper hand in that one, but ultimately they settled it...

B

[iMeowbot]

Looking at the filing via Kotaku (http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/resources/2006/12/InterlinkvNintendo.pdf), it really doesn't seem to turn on the pointing issue, transmitting technologies, etc. - instead, it looks as simple as "this is a patent for a remote control device with a trigger on the front-underside and batteries in the back." See abstract on page 6 of the linked PDF.

That's just the abstract for the patent, a full copy of which follows in pages 7 and on. The complaint doesn't mention how Interlink believe the Nintendo controller infringes. The abstract doesn't really explain the nature of the invention, it's only a broad description to help narrow down the classification. For the meat, you have to dredge through the whole document.

[Buschmaster]

Your TV remotes have a trigger button underneath? Mine don't :p

B
It's all in the details...

[AmbitiousLemon]

This patent, like 99&#37; of patents imo, shouldn't have been granted. What ever happened to "non-obvious" and previous art?

Nintendo had a pointing device with a trigger with the original NES (duck hunt anyone?)

And frankly, such a device (an electronic gun) falls into the "obvious" category. No one should own that idea.

Essentially these people think they have a patent for a gun.

This is like when microsoft patented the mouse, or when some dude in australia patented the wheel, or amazon patented "one-click"

I don't really care if Nintendo has to pay this company a few million, but this sort of BS happens in important industries like healthcare and in those instances the result is people die.

[takao]

Your TV remotes have a trigger button underneath? Mine don't :p


mine neither but a friend saw this remote in a hotel in munich

[Gimzotoy]

Putting buttons on both sides of the PCB is a complication most designers would like to avoid, so it probably wasn't quite so trivial in 1995.

The fact that the patent is granted means that it is assumed to be valid until proven invalid in court. Even though in this case, they may have actually filed this continuation of their earlier patent with the Wii remote or maybe a general class of wireless game controllers specifically in mind.

B

I didn't realize putting a metal pad on both sides of PCB was ever difficult. I had electronics kits in the early 80s that did exactly that. And they were those cheap "learning electronics" type stuff.

Unfortunately that's part of the problem with patents. They're not enough examiners, so patents get granted when they probably shouldn't. Once they're granted, as you said, they're very expensive to fight. We had the USPTO at our University at least 2 dozen times while I was there recruiting for examiners. They said they were "extremely short-staffed" and unable to keep up.

I still don't understand the difference between the Wii's remote and the other system's wireless controls. They all have triggers, are wireless, with thumb-operated buttons. In fact, I had a wireless infrared original NES controller that had trigger buttons (used for "Turbo" button pressing). That was in the mid 80s, of course. They were horrible and rarely worked right, but they existed.

[balamw]

mine neither but a friend saw this remote in a hotel in munich
US patents only cover .... the US.

You can't make sell or use it in the US, but if there's no coverage in Germany it's fair game ... at least there. ;)

I didn't realize putting a metal pad on both sides of PCB was ever difficult.
Not difficult, just something people prefer to avoid due to tolerance stackups. It's not the metal pads per se or even the connectors, just getting the distances between all of the components right is not "fun". Why do you think that the nano moved the headphone connector to the dock side?

Unfortunately that's part of the problem with patents. They're not enough examiners, so patents get granted when they probably shouldn't.
You get no argument from me on that.

I still don't understand the difference between the Wii's remote and the other system's wireless controls.
Me either, which is why I mentioned them above as a target of the patent continuation. The Wii remote may be a particular target since it held in a single hand, unlike the usual two handed game controller....

B

[Gimzotoy]

Me either, which is why I mentioned them above as a target of the patent continuation. The Wii remote may be a particular target since it held in a single hand, unlike the usual two handed game controller....

B

Could be. Though I doubt Nintendo would let this go to court and risk ending up like Sony with their vibration feedback fiasco. Sony lost their patent court battle and as a result is the only current-gen console without controller vibration. If I remember correctly Microsoft was smart and bought the company, and Nintendo secured a long license agreement. Nintendo will probably quietly license the technology to avoid the risk of the Wii being pulled from shelves. Which is probably exactly what Interlink wanted given that they waited until just after launch to file when the controller design has been known for awhile now.

[GFLPraxis]

Could be. Though I doubt Nintendo would let this go to court and risk ending up like Sony with their vibration feedback fiasco. Sony lost their patent court battle and as a result is the only current-gen console without controller vibration. If I remember correctly Microsoft was smart and bought the company, and Nintendo secured a long license agreement. Nintendo will probably quietly license the technology to avoid the risk of the Wii being pulled from shelves. Which is probably exactly what Interlink wanted given that they waited until just after launch to file when the controller design has been known for awhile now.

But this is a very different case. Both Microsoft and Sony actually used Immersion's design in their controllers, and only Nintendo had licensed it beforehand.

This company has clearly nothing to do with Nintendo's design. Nintendo'll either pay them a couple million to shut up or kick their butt's in court (more likely the first so they don't have to go through the trouble). The company probably KNOWS there is no way they'd get the Wii pulled off the shelf; they just want to put up enough of a stink that Nintendo pays them off.

[balamw]

Nintendo'll either pay them a couple million to shut up or kick their butt's in court (more likely the first so they don't have to go through the trouble).

The company's only worth $36.4M so they could probably be had pretty cheap.

B

[Gimzotoy]

But this is a very different case. Both Microsoft and Sony actually used Immersion's design in their controllers, and only Nintendo had licensed it beforehand.

I wasn't aware Sony had any connection whatsoever to Immersion. Why would they think they could use Immersion's technologies and then not pay them anything. I thought they just put in their dual shock system in their controllers and the courts determined it was close enough to Immersion's valid patents that it constituted infringement.

[GFLPraxis]

I wasn't aware Sony had any connection whatsoever to Immersion. Why would they think they could use Immersion's technologies and then not pay them anything. I thought they just put in their dual shock system in their controllers and the courts determined it was close enough to Immersion's valid patents that it constituted infringement.

IIRC it was a direct copy of Immersion's stuff, which Immersion originally tried to license to everyone. Sony said no and copied it, again IIRC.

[Gimzotoy]

IIRC it was a direct copy of Immersion's stuff, which Immersion originally tried to license to everyone. Sony said no and copied it, again IIRC.

Haha. If that's true they deserve every bit of the court lashing they got. That's just not smart.

[BurtonCCC]

This has a trigger. Is it an infringement?

http://www.impactguns.com/store/media/ber_92f.jpg

Daniel.

[balamw]

This has a trigger. Is it an infringement?
Daniel.
You need a thumb operated button on the top and a pointing device. Perhaps a laser sight? :p

B

[BurtonCCC]

You need a thumb operated button on the top and a pointing device. Perhaps a laser sight? :p

B

These babies have a thumb-operated button, a manual aiming device on the top, and a trigger. Look out Wild West! Looks like you're going to have to only use bows and arrows now...

http://www.rebelrouserwear.com/images/sixshooter.jpg

Daniel.