• Home
  • 1st Annual Symposium
  • About
  • Available Positions
  • Issues
    • Vol. 4 Issue 2
    • Vol. 4 Issue 1
    • Vol. 3 Issue 3
    • Vol. 3, Issue 2
    • Vol. 3, Issue 1
    • Vol. 2, Issue 3
    • Vol. 2, Issue 2
    • Vol. 2, Issue 1
    • Vol. 1, Issue 1
  • Staff
    • 2009-2010 Staff
    • 2010-2011 Staff
    • 2011-2012 Staff
    • 2012-2013 Staff
  • Submissions
  • Subscribe
Featured Article

A featured article from the current issue of the Intellectual Property Brief.

Daily Blog

A daily blog of IP-related news and issues

Articles

All of the Intellectual Property Brief’s published articles. All articles are hand-selected from outside submissions and from our very own IPB staff members.

Issues

PDF versions of each of the Intellectual Property Brief’s issues.

Short Circuit

Case-by-case summaries of intellectual property related opinions from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Home » Daily Blog, Patents

“Wii Didn’t Infringe,” Says Nintendo- Federal Circuit Agrees

Submitted by Brett Havranek on April 19, 2010 – 3:37 PM80No Commenthttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2010%2F04%2F19%2F%25e2%2580%259cwii-didn%25e2%2580%2599t-infringe%25e2%2580%259d-says-nintendo-federal-circuit-agrees%2F%E2%80%9CWii+Didn%E2%80%99t+Infringe%2C%E2%80%9D+Says+Nintendo-+Federal+Circuit+Agrees2010-04-19+20%3A37%3A26Brett+Havranekhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D80

On April 13, 2010, the Federal Circuit found that the Nintendo Wii did not infringe a patent held by Anascape, Ltd.  The Nintendo Wii is a popular gaming console which has sold millions of units worldwide.  The Wii uses an innovative control system where the motion and positioning of the controller determine what happens in the game, which is unlike most other game systems that only use traditional buttons for input.  With the Wii, the player typically uses one hand to hold a “nunchuck” and the other to hold the Wii Remote, and the two are used in unison to play the game.  Anascape holds a patent on this type of device, U.S. Patent 6,906,700 (the ‘700 patent), and had won an infringement trial before a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.  At the jury trial, damages were awarded, and an injunction was issued and stayed pending appeal.  The Federal Circuit reversed the district court because the ‘700 patent was filed as a continuation-in-part of an earlier application whose written description only covered single-membered controllers.  The ‘700 patent, which covered controllers with multiple members, was considered a new invention from the earlier patent and therefore was not able to enjoy the earlier filing date.  With the later filing date and Anascape’s concession that a later filing date would render the patent invalid due to prior art, the court was able to reverse the jury verdict and to decide as a matter of law that there was no infringement. See Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of America Inc., No. 2008-1500, 2010 WL 1441772 (Fed. Cir.  Apr. 13, 2010).

By Brett Havranek

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare

About the Author:

Author: Brett Havranek

Brett Havranek is a 2011 J.D. Candidate at the Washington College of Law at American University and the Patent Section Editor of the American University Intellectual Property Brief. He graduated from Washington University in St. Louis in 2006 with majors in Biology and Economics and a minor in Philosophy. Before starting law school, Brett worked at Novum Pharmaceutical Research Services as a Clinical Research Associate monitoring clinical trials for new drugs. His legal interests include pharmaceutical law, health law, patents, and trademarks.

Brett Havranek has written 3 posts for the IPB.

Leave a comment!

Click here to cancel reply »

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.

Copyright »

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Mr. Brainwash’s works recently joined the increasing number of cases on appropriation art after photographer Dennis Morris sued the street artist for use of his 1977 picture of Sid Vicious.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Patents »

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Shortly after the oral arguments between Monsanto and Bowman, WCL hosted both parties for a post argument discussion. Recently the Supreme Court ruled on the case, requiring annual purchases of Monsanto’s soybeans.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Trademark »

Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million

Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million

Supreme, one of the most coveted skate-inspired clothing brands, is suing women’s clothing brand Married to the Mob and its founder Leah McSweeney for trademark infringement to the tune of $10 million.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Facebook

Accepting Submissions

The IP Brief is currently accepting submissions. We are looking for papers that address a legal topic relating to any area of intellectual property. Please submit completed papers and a cover page with the name and title of the article to ipbrief [at] wcl.american.edu. Any questions can also be sent to this e-mail address.

Blogroll

  • American University Washington College of Law
  • Carrollogos
  • Copyright Blog
  • GamePolitics
  • Intellectual Property Watch
  • PatentlyO
  • Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
  • Spicy IP
  • The TTABlog®
  • ©ollectanea

Tags

Archives

  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • January 2010

Random Posts

FIFA Taking Extreme Measures to Protect World Cup™ IP Who Controls Trademarks In Films? A Student’s Perspective on Science and Engineering Education and Patent Prosecution Tim Tebow’s Monopoly on Prayer: Confusion Surrounding “Tebowing” and the Reach of Trademark Protection Death Decrowned - Billboard Depicting Grim Reaper Wearing Cheesehead is Altered A Fracas about Fragrance: Copyright’s Application to Perfume The USPTO Announces Patents for Humanity Program Keep Off Kardashians! The Gap Fights Back, Retaliates to Kim K’s Suit Over Alleged Misappropriation of Her Celebrity Persona NinjaVideo Not Stealthy Enough: Two Founders Plead Guilty to Conspiracy and Criminal Copyright Charges Cracking Down on Counterfeit Wine and Spirits: Business, Health, and Intellectual Property Final Announcement: Fall 2011 Submissions Due Today WIPO Agrees to Support South American IP Project
(refresh random posts)

Latest Video Post

Relatively New Anti-Piracy PSA: Another Analogy Comparison of Piracy to Stealing Cars or an Effective Message?

Recent Posts

  • Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business
  • Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million
  • Appropriating Sid Vicious
  • Chick-Fil-A’s ‘Eat Mor Chikin’ Trumps Kale-Promotion Slogan
  • Oxycontin and the Implications of Pay-For-Delay

Twitter

  • No public Twitter messages.
  • Copy / Paste
  • Site Search
  • Wikipedia
  • Google
  • Facts
  • Amazon
  • eBay
  • Outlook
  • Gmail
  • Y! Mail
  • Twitter
  • Search & Share
Powered by WordPress | Log in | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Arthemia Premium theme by Colorlabs Project
The American University Intellectual Property Brief is licensed by the staff of the American University Intellectual Property Brief under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License. IPBrief.net is hosted by Dan Rosenthal. For technical queries, contact dan@danrosenthal.org

Creative Commons License