Nintendo’s Wii remote cleared of patent infringement
Nintendo has survived an appeal against a judgment that its Wii remote device is not patent-infringing, although the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a previous decision that the asserted patent was indefinite.
Licensing company UltimatePointer owns US patent number 8,049,729, which covers a handheld pointing device that controls a cursor on a computer screen.
In 2011, the licensing company sued Nintendo and retailers selling the remote controller that comes with the Wii console at the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
In response, Nintendo requested a transfer to the US District Court for the Western District of Washington, but that was initially denied by the Texas court. Nintendo then filed a request to the federal circuit to transfer the case.
The case was transferred to the Washington court, which granted Nintendo’s motion for summary judgment that the remote device was not patent-infringing. The court revoked the patent on the grounds that it was indefinite.
The Washington court, explaining that the patent was directed to a handheld device containing an image sensor and the sensor’s method of generating data, concluded that what the patent specifically covered was unclear.
Affirming the judgment of non-infringement yesterday, March 1, the federal circuit ruled that the patent only covered a “direct-pointing device”, whereas Nintendo’s remote control is an “indirect-pointing device”.
“All of the evidence establishes that it is the relationship between the Wii remote and the sensor bar, not the Wii remote and the television screen, that allows the Wii system to function.
“The object of pointing the cursor is displayed, not based on the relationship between the Wii remote and where the Wii remote is pointing on the television screen, but instead based on the relationship between the Wii remote and the sensor bar,” the court concluded.
In addition, the federal circuit reversed the indefinite ruling, stating that “the claims do not reflect an attempt to claim an apparatus and a method, but instead claim an apparatus with particular capabilities”, meaning that the patent is valid.
