Nintendo ordered to pay $21 million to patent troll
By Thomas Ricker 
posted May 15th 2008 6:02AM
posted May 15th 2008 6:02AM
Remember Anascape Ltd, the little "gaming company" that sued Microsoft and Nintendo back in 2006 for controller patent infringement? Well, it's payday to the tune of $21 million after a jury found Nintendo's Wii Classic, WaveBird, and Gamecube controller designs all guilty of violating Anascape's patents. Nintendo will appeal naturally while Microsoft settled the case before the matter ever went to trial. Now go ahead and Google Anascape with the challenge of finding a single service or product offering. Oh, did we mention that they are based in the patent-lawsuit friendly state of Tejas? Patent Trolls? Oh, you betcha.Anascape... there is none.
Sorry but the prior art will easily read on claims that broad.
I'll get it on file for 10k though if you insist on filing. 3k per Office action after that. First action should be expected in 2-3 years and final disposition (can't sue until patent issues) will be in 3-7 years. Let me know.
If you DID go through that like these guys did, then offered licenses to people who were stealing your idea, I'll bet you'd feel good about suing them and wouldn't be referring to yourself as a troll.
I thought one had to be practicing a patent in some way for it to be valid. It was never my understanding that you could file some paper, sit back, and sue. So where's their products?
That's what I thought, but it appears that this practice is more and more becoming similar to the idea of cyber-squatting which I think is ridiculous and should be stopped. I do think that there are many people out there with great ideas and no funds to produce those ideas and in some cases because of this they take their patents to large companies, expecting to get paid. In turn they get told no and then the company blatantly rips off the idea. However I think more cases nowadays have to do with the cyber-squatter type - people just filing away with no intention of ever making, just collecting. I think some laws need to get set against this.
They don't have any..... they're patent trolls. They buy up every conceivable patent, never actually make anything, and sit around suing everyone all day.
I HAVE PATENTED OXYGEN!
PAY UP
Just no. That's all I've got for you, no.
When you actually invent something, give me 20k, and I'll get a patent for you (assuming you actually invented something not taught by the prior art). It involves slightly more than "filing some paper and sitting back" as I'm sure you actually suspected. By the way, at 20k including prosecution, I'm cheap. Most US firms run about 30k total, and in the EPO, you're looking at around 40-50k depending on how it goes.
Practicing the invention is not required for enforcement, only a valid, ISSUED patent. You are disclosing your contribution to the useful arts in exchange for the right to exclude others from practicing your invention AS CLAIMED in any subsequently ISSUED patent for a period of 20 years from filing (plus or minus any patent term adjustments due to delay, usually up or down 3 years or less).
Havok (has no clue about patents or law suits).
You're right, trials are a snap. It's not like anything happens. Why did this take 2 years in a jurisdiction with a supposed "rocket docket" again?
I'll file that oxygen patent for you for 10k. I'm not saying you'll get a patent (because you won't due to prior art and subject matter issues) but I'll file it.
It's amazing how easily armchair attorneys can dismiss 2 years of multiple real attorneys' lives and the time and money spent by small inventors.
Seriously, as a small inventor, with the avg patent suit costing 10mil, how am I supposed to pay for that? Easy, I sell my patent to a patent investment firm that risks THEIR 10mil on enforcing my patent. How else would you suggest that I make my 20k investment in the patent alone pay off, not to mention my R&D time. Do you really think an individual can muster the resources to successfully sue Microsoft, Nintendo, IBM, HP, etc? No, they need these patent investment/enforcement companies to risk THEIR money. I personally consider a 10mil "everything on black" bet too rich for my blood (if I could even muster the 10mil to put on the table in the first place).
If Microsoft settled, perhaps they were hoping their settlement funds would fuel a more damaging lawsuit against Nintendo.
Or, as is more likely, they paid outside counsel to look at the patents and the prior art and issue an opinion. The opinion probably said "uh oh, patents valid, and you're probably infringing." So MS just went ahead and paid a resonable royalty instead of spending ~10mil defending at trial plus the infringement damages found by the court (another 20mil).
I mean, that makes business sense, but yeah, you're probably right. MS probably just said "SURE! Here's 20 mil, give Nintendo hell".
The name of the lawyer that represented Anascape in Anascap v. Microsoft is Anthony M. Garza, Anthony M. Garza is an Associate in the Dallas office of McKool Smith. Though lawyers sometimes don't like to reveal client details, I can't help but see the guy who assisted with Microsoft settling out of court not wanting to say a word or two. The court docs from Anascape are here [ http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/texas/txedce/9:2006cv00158/97919/ ] I'm sure there is a "Anascape DBA" line somewhere if anyone really feels like looking.
Dallas Office, McKool Smith TEL: 214.978.4243
i my self once almost filed for a patent once a long time ago on the advise of my friend who once work for one the so called intellectual properties investment company
i will tell u what he told me my patent idea was not that great he said that it didn't really matter becuz he could easily sell my idea to one the the investment companies when as i ask y would they buy such a lame idea
the respounce was they buy almost any idea it doesn't really matter what it is they don't make money off actually producing anything from it they just wait to see if anything comes out down the road t hey can sue over
basically he said works like this his actual words was here how the scam works they scroll pat office and look at trends then they pat some vague or ridiculous obvious idea
the vague part being the most important becuz almost any good lawyer can twist it in to what he wants lawyers hate detail they like things vague and obscure
to answer the question that some 1 ask before on y did 12 jury and judge rule for the pat trolls if there want true well i can sum that up with out a law degree just look at the oj Simpson case it called resomable doubt kinda works the same in civil cases
with really vague pat that got a lot room to argue any 2 bit lawyer would has no trouble twisting hings around that all it takes
not to mention my friend told almost always will side with small company cuz most jury don't really understand all tech stuff there talking about any how and figure a big in this case Nintendo company can afford to pay any how so no big deal
wel there my 2 cents on side note if u look at the history of the companies u will see most were original started by lawyers that should tell u something
sorry for the poor gramer i am using my phone right now and i am not verry good with it yet
Saying "a friend told me" doesn't make the information any more true.
35 USC 103 prevents the issuance of a patent that is obvious in light of the prior art. So your friend is full of it, and so are you.
Please stop spreading THIRD-HAND disinformation.
Which is it? Do they look through the patents and file on "obvious" trends (which costs a lot of money and never issues as a patent therefore preventing them from filing suit), or do they buy up validly issued patents on marginally valuable inventions and hope that someone wants to (or does) use the invention in the future?
http://www.google.com/patents?id=OLIVAAAAEBAJ&dq=anascape
Man that Patent coveres everything..
the buttons the d-pad hell it covers trackballs and those lil laptop button mouse pointers..
even rumble functionality:
A 3-D graphics controller used with a television based game according to claim 1 wherein said active tactile feedback vibration is provided by a motor and offset weight
wonder if they could sue all the 3rd party controller people.. looking thru the pictures gives you a better sence of the patent.. and the ideas therein..
as for um being trolls.. meh who knows .. but they definitely got a point that theres infringement there.. i mean how couldn't there be.. its a patent on "a controller" that does "something" using "circuitry" and involving "controlling" something ..
Wonder if theres a patent on Religion.. THE POPE'S GOING TO PAY!!!
The claim you cited refers back to claim 1 which means that it incorporates all of the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, to infringe that claim, you must also have everything described in claim 1, which I'm sure has a lot more limitations, but doesn't look as outlandishly broad as a dependent claim printed in the abstract without the independent claim from which it depends.
IMO, "trolls" are like he stated, people that patent ideas with the sole intention of suing someone else that happens to infringe on your rather broad patent. I understand the issue of startup costs, but no one says you have to start big. Too often it's quite clear that there was never any intention of bringing a patent to fruition.
I'm going to patent a thing that is able to cause one or more things to happen spontaneously and/or through things happening to it.
Andy I noticed you didn't answer Vidikron's question (at least not that I could see) and as someone that appears to have knowledge on the subject I too want to know what you think.
What is your opinion on the following:
Patenting an idea with the sole intention of sitting on it and not making a real attempt to produce a product or licence it.
The problem I have with this patent is that it covers input based on broad and vague wording. It does not ptant a product or product layout, but just the ability to translate tactile input into onscreen motion.
I'm sorry but there never should have been a patent granted for this. An idea to take electrical input and make it do something is not worthy of a patent.
This patent looks like it was stolen from somebody elses description of a product they saw soemwhere. That is why th ecompany is a "Patent Troll" they do not actually make anything they just buy patent for the explicit purpose of suing based on broad claims.
Andy if you are a lawyer surely you can tell the difference between patenting a product and patenting a vague description that should have been thrown out as soon as it hit the clerks desk.
The types of devices this patent covers have been around for 60 years or more in some form. Flexible membranes covering circuit boards to relay switching information.
This is total BS
2. A 3-D graphics controller used with a television based game according to claim 1 wherein said active tactile feedback vibration is provided by a motor and offset weight.
Sorry but the idea of attaching a weight to a motor can not and should not ever be a patentable idea. How you attach the weight and the size of the weight could be but not just the idea of a weight. What does Immersion have to say about this. Don't they have a patent for rumble. Or is it that they added the words 3-D and somehow that gives them a brand new or better idea.
Andy, the biggest problem is that not a single one of these patents would hold up in international court. In fact Nintendo was probably issued an international patent based on far stricter standards and should be enforced above this companies BS claims.
Please learn to read.
Each claim is not "a patent".
Each claim is not it's own "patentable idea."
The claim you reprinted includes the limitations of the independent claim from which it depends and further limits that claim.
Put your money where your mouth is. Show me the reference that predates the filing of this patent and teaches each and every element of the claims.
Neither the Nintendo lawyers nor the USPTO examiners could find the invalidating prior art, but I'm sure you're much smarter than all of them. Let's have it.
See this is where the rubber hits the road and where all of your "well, I'm sure this is old because I've seen it" goes down the toilet. PROVE it.
There's a thing called hindsight (what you're using) that you can't do in patent cases. You can't look at a patent and say well, this is obvious in light of its own disclosure. OF COURSE it's obvious AFTER you've read the patent and seen the product.
Here is the patent:
---------------------------------------------------------
1. A 3-D graphics controller used with a television based game, comprising:
a game, said game at least in part controlled by
circuitry, said circuitry located on
at least one sheet, said at least one sheet comprising:
a circuit board sheet connected to
a flexible membrane sheet;
a first element structured to activate
four unidirectional sensors, said four unidirectional sensors at least in part connected to said at least one sheet, said four unidirectional sensors useful to control said game;
a second element with structure to activate
a first two rotary potentiometers, said first two rotary potentiometers at least in part connected to said at least one sheet, said first two rotary potentiometers useful to control said game;
a third element with structure to activate
a second two rotary potentiometers, said second two rotary potentiometers at least in part connected to said at least one sheet, said second two rotary potentiometers useful to control said game;
an independent first button structured to activate
a first button sensor, said first button depressible by a single finger of a user, said first button sensor at least in part connected to said at least one sheet, said first button sensor creates simple switched On/Off data useful to control said game;
an independent pivotal second button structured to activate
a second button sensor, said second button pivots upon depression by a single finger of the user, said second button sensor at least in part connected to said at least one sheet, said second button sensor capable of outputing a proportional signal useful to control said game;
an independent pivotal third button structured to activate
a third button sensor, said third button pivotal upon depression by a single finger of the user, said third button sensor at least in part connected to said at least one sheet, said third button sensor capable of outputing a proportional signal useful to control said game;
active tactile feedback vibration detectable by the user of said game.
----------------------------------------------------------
The patent was filed in 2000 and issued in 2005. Every one of the above claims can have prior art cited. It is the definition of every input controller made including every joystick ever made. This is the textbook definition of a bogus patent.
Again, find the prior art that teaches each and every element of the claim.
Nintendo and the PTO couldn't do it, but let's see it.
I’m on your side Andy.
Patents, such as this one, are made available for viewing so that corporate attorneys can ensure that R&D isn’t infringing on the intellectual property another patent holder. If Nintendo’s legal team didn’t catch this as something that could be problematic then it’s their fault for not being thorough enough in their research.
Microsoft’s not exactly a company that rolls over on command, especially for tiny patent holding firms, so if they settled they probably recognized the merit in the plaintiff’s case. Nintendo should follow suit (no pun intended).
Patent Trolls = SCUM SUCKING BASTARDS
Hey all.
I am on the fence if this is patent trolling or not. I have to really look deeper into this particular case to determine what it is. However Andy, are you saying that patent trolling is a myth?
I think everyone should be reminded that Andy as a patent attorney is biased source as he benefits from this stuff.
On the other hand, don't listen to the idiots that say the "my friend said" BS. I can assure you that everyone who talks about what their friend said is a complete and total uninformed idiot who has zero critical thinking skills.
So Andy, I guess you must have a really light case load considering the fact that you can spend all day arguing on the Internet all day.
Patent trolling is a term invented by IBM's general counsel during the course of some of their litigation (no joke). It may or may not exist depending on how you define it. Seriously, try to define it. If you just use nonpracticing, then you're including people who tried but failed to bring something to market.
As to whether this abstract idea exists, asks yourself this: would you spend 20k over 4-5 years to get a patent and then sit on it until another company brings an infringing product to market? Or, would you actively try to bring it to market yourself or license your idea to someone who could?
Actually, I don't benefit from litigation. I benefit from large corporate clients setting filing quotas. I prefer small business clients with shoot the moon type ideas. So really, I'm on both sides. We all benefit from promoting the useful arts, so you decide the relevance of that.
As far as my workload goes, I'm coming out of a dark several months of 60-70hr weeks (mid-February till now). It's hard to find much motivation today.
Patent trolling is a term invented by IBM's general counsel during the course of some of their litigation (no joke). It may or may not exist depending on how you define it. Seriously, try to define it. If you just use nonpracticing, then you're including people who tried but failed to bring something to market.
As to whether this abstract idea exists, asks yourself this: would you spend 20k over 4-5 years to get a patent and then sit on it until another company brings an infringing product to market? Or, would you actively try to bring it to market yourself or license your idea to someone who could?
Actually, I don't benefit from litigation. I benefit from large corporate clients setting filing quotas. I prefer small business clients with shoot the moon type ideas. So really, I'm on both sides. We all benefit from promoting the useful arts, so you decide the relevance of that.
As far as my workload goes, I'm coming out of a dark several months of 60-70hr weeks (mid-February till now). It's hard to find much motivation today.
By the way, trolling and validity are separate issues.
Regardless of someone's situation, if they own a valid, infringed patent, they deserve to be compensated.
If an Examiner has failed in his duties and allows a patent having claims that read on the prior art, that bothers me. The Examiners are currently over-extended and need to be allowed more time to search the relevant prior art.
I really wish patents would require more strict definitions. Let say Nintendo develop a really neat controller like that Wii-thing. The implementation would be patented, i.e. the firmware, component layout etc. But not the general idea of the controller.
Let's face it, talk (and ideas) are cheap, what's expensive is actually making it into a working product or a working product idea.
The patent is was filed in 2000. The DualShock came out in 1997.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DualShock
How could they get a patent on this idea if it already existed and was public (i.e. Sony was not sitting on the idea, it had produced and was selling a product)?
@tsmvengy
the patent is describing the original dual shock
I was thinking that, as well
Wake up! The patent system is broken.
Patent trolls are real, and they are sickening.
A company with no products, 1 engineer, 30 lawyers and a 'license or litigate' business model is a PATENT TROLL.
The notion that patent trolls protect the 'small time inventor' is laughable, and merely a myth that the trolls create so they can sleep at night. The trolls buy patents from small inventors or distressed companies for pennies on the dollar, and then go looking for companies to sue. Patent trolls exploit weaknesses in the patent system for their own economic gain. Nothing else. They offer nothing to the economy. They stifle innovation, and distract resources from companies generating legitimate economic activity. Every dollar spent fighting or settling with patent trolls is a dollar that is not spent on creating true innovation and creating jobs.
The patent trolls exploit key weaknesses in the system:
1.) The USPTO is over-worked, under-informed and unable to effectively discharge its duties. They do not understand the technologies involved. They do not have time to fully research the prior art. The backlog of patent applications is staggering. The USPTO makes mistakes all the time. They grant vague 'patents of method' which are very open to interpretation. But even if a patent should never have been granted, or is obvious, PROVING invalidity is the burden of the defendant, and that is extremely difficult and expensive. After all, the patent has a government seal of approval. Your average jury member in Marshall, Texas is incapable of understanding a technology patent suit, and the government seal of approval is all he needs. The trolls know this and exploit it to the hilt.
2.) Most companies don't want to risk a trial with a jury that has no ability to understand the merits of the case. The trial by jury system depends, of course, on the jury members. Where can you find the least educated people in the entire country? In eastern Texas. Where are most patent suits filed? In eastern Texas! Don't you think it's odd that all the big high-tech companies are being sued in Marshall, Texas? I mean, who has even heard of it? (except for those of us familiar with patent litigation...and we know it all too well.) The trolls know that the companies they sue are scared to death of having their fate in the hands of jury members who haven't even graduated high school.
3.) Patent suits are expensive. It's usually cheaper to pay and make the trolls go away. So when you hear a patent troll trying to legitimize their
'technology' by saying that such-and-such company licensed it, please understand what really happened. The company in question would rather pay, say, $1M in license fees than $5M to litigate a patent suit, which they may or may not win. The trolls would also rather take the easy $1M than pursue an expensive case. So the sooner the extortion money is paid, the better.
4.) Trolls file their suits in the Eastern District of Texas becasue the Judge there is extremely plaintiff-friendly, and 90% of the time will not rule on plaintiff's motions. He just punts decisions to juries. His attitude seems to be 'Why take a position, which could be overturned on appeal and make me look bad? Let the jury decide.' And few defendants want to risk a jury trial. The judge is accountable for nothing and to no one. The costs of the trial, the costs of his indecision, are invisible and irrelevant to him.
5.) Most of these patent trolls are companies that no one has ever heard of, while the defendants are large, well-known and seemingly 'rich' companies. The average jury member (who flunked out of the 9th grade and is unemployed) thinks of the troll as the 'little guy' while the name-brand company is the 'big guy' who can afford to pay. I know this is true, because I have seen the commentary from actual jury members. It's a complete perversion of reality, since the trolls are often backed by rich VCs, but that fact is inexplicable to the typical jury member who has no idea what a VC is. But he sure knows who Nintendo is.
My experience dealing with patent litigation was shocking and horrifying. It offended every moral fiber of my being. I thought, How can this be going on in America? This is extortion with a government seal of approval!
But it is real. Our patent system is terribly broken.
Does anascape have any products out? I googled it and found nothing.
For all of you that says this company is a troll just because it filed a patent and has no product, you have to realize that a lot of companies do that nowadays, including your beloved Nintendo, Microsoft, Google, etc.
Companies file patents into their IP portfolio whenever they have an idea, whether they plan to make a product on it or not. Many times, large corps use these these threaten each other when there are infringements. In your definition, that would make Nintendo a troll too, and they deserve what they got.
As far as this company goes, you think the patent was vague because controllers with those mechanisms seem so obvious nowadays, but I am sure someone had to come up with that idea... don't be bitter because it wasn't you who filed it.
Kick ass! Now Anascape can incorporate!!
Exactly how can they claim :
2. A 3-D graphics controller used with a television based game according to claim 1 wherein said active tactile feedback vibration is provided by a motor and offset weight.
When this specifically has been covered in all of Immersions previous claims and subsequent lawsuits?
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,424,333.PN.&OS=PN/6,424,333&RS=PN/6,424,333
Or is the difference that one is referencing a computer peripheral and one is referencing a 3-d graphics controller?