Home Blog Hard Blow to Anascape from the Federal Circuit in its patent infringement case
May 07

Hard Blow to Anascape from the Federal Circuit in its patent infringement case

Posted by: IP News Blog Print PDF
Tagged in: Untagged 

Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reverses ruling in Anascape v. Nintendo patent infringement lawsuit


On April 13, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s $21 million judgment against Nintendo of America in a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Anascape, Ltd.


In 2008, a Texas jury found Nintendo’s GameCube and Wii Classic Controllers infringed Anascape’s 3D controller with vibration patent. Nintendo appealed the verdict, claiming Anascape’s claims were invalid due to prior art.


Anascape’s patent-at-issue, US Patent No. 6,906,700, was filed on November 16, 2000 as a continuation-in-part of the application for another of its patents, US Patent No. 6,222,525. The latter patent was filed on July 5, 1996.


The principal issue on Nintendo’s appeal was whether the claims in Anascape’s patent-at-issue were entitled to the July 5, 1996 filing date. Without the 1996 filing date, two Sony controller patents in 1998 and 2000 were threatening prior art patents.


The Court considered the requirement needed for a continuation-in-part to obtain the filing date of the parent application: the written description in the parent application must have sufficient detail to show the claims in the later-filed application were invented at the time of the parent application.


Nintendo’s appeal focused on the description in Anascape’s parent application of a single input member operable in six degrees of freedom, a description that was broadened by the continuation-in-part to include more than a single input member.


Based on this broadening of the description, the Court found that the requirement for the continuation-in-part was not met, and ruled the continuation claims invalid.


According to the Court, Nintendo’s allegedly infringing controllers did not have a single input member that moves in six degrees of freedom. Because the Court found Anascape’s patent-at-issue only covers single input members, it reversed the district court’s decision in favor of Nintendo.


SOURCE:

Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of America, Inc., No. 9:06-CV-158 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 13, 2010).

Our Law Firm Handles Some Patent Infringement Cases on a Contingency Fee Basis.

Name:
Phone Number:
Address
E-Mail Address:
Case Details:
Submission of any information to IP-Contingency-Lawyer.Com does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Our Attorneys are licensed to practice law in North Carolina. Should you reside in another state, the law firm may need to associate with local counsel to assist you in accordance with the laws and regulations of your jurisdiction.

Follow us on Twitter!