If you have visited the site these past few days, you may have noticed this story that a federal court in Dallas ruled a patent guaranteed against Nintendo & # 39; s Wii Remote as invalid. The court said Life Technologies Inc. "has been trying its best to find a broader criterion for using motion sensors to detect motion", it also made Nintendo's $ 10.1 million judge award for the program. It's an exciting story, and one that has sparked a heated debate among fans.
Following this, legal and sports IP company Dorsey & Whitney shared a statement with us from Ryan Meyer, a commercial lawyer for the company. He notes that the latter case is "a warning to copyright holders … that very broad claims may be found to be copyrighted". We've shared some of his comments below.
"The iLife decision has provided another example of the patent's inability to use standard hardware to make a general impression.
"The iLife decision is a warning to designers, especially with regard to computer-based materials, that too many claims may be found to be irrefutable. As a precautionary measure, patents should show the strongest aspects of their manufacture and edit at least some of the claims that are specific to these features.
"If iLife was more mindful of its technology in drafting its claims, this case might have ended differently. As the Court noted, iLife's patent illegally discloses a popular form of information, but a claim made by iLife was found to be invalid because it failed. to include any of those features.
"ILife is interesting in that because Nintendo raised the issue of patent infringement for a brief decision, the Court expected it to take judgment after trial as a matter of law, without a court filing. "
In response to the official win, Nintendo said it would "continue to be more protective of its [its] products", accusing Life of "wanting to make profits from technologies they don't get".
