Ever heard of the Wavit remote? It’s totally okay if you haven’t; that’s not what this story is about. The Wavit Remote’s makers on the other hand… Well, they’ve decided to up and sue Nintendo over the Wii. Not only that, but they’ve included other retailers and manufacturers — including WalMart — in the complaint as well. And they’ve chosen the setting most likely to yield a win: the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Texas.
Now, that’s not to say that Wavit makers ThinkOptical will get a win, but this particular court circuit tends to favor the patent holder over all else.
The patent in question, U.S. Patent Number 7,796,116, is titled “Electronic equipment for handheld vision based absolute pointing system.” ThinkOptic’s primary argument in the case is that Nintendo had previous knowledge that the Wii would infringe based on the Trademark Office’s rejection of certain claims in Nintendo-filed patents, reports Law360.
“The rejection of [...] applications — assigned to Nintendo Co. Ltd. — based on the ’116 patent is proof that the Nintendo defendants knew or should have known of the objective risk that one or more of their products infringed at least one claim of at least the ’116 Patent,” said ThinkOptic in its complaint.
ThinkOptic included two other patents in the case, as well — one called “Handheld Device for Handheld Vision Based Absolute Pointing System” (7,852,317) and the other titled “Handheld Vision Based Absolute Pointing System” (7,864,159). These two, coupled with the ’116 patent make up the basis for the Wavit Remote.
According to ThinkOptic, just about every part of the Wii infringes these patents in some capacity. That includes the gaming system as a whole, Wii controllers, the sensor bars, and even the games. ThinkOptic also gave Nintendo, and the court, a heads-up on the Wii U: apparently that, too, infringes on ThinkOptic’s patents.
Other big names listed as respondents in the suit include Imation, Nyko Technologies, GameStop, RadioShack, and JC Penney. ThinkOptic is asking for an injunction against violating products, as well as royalties, attorney’s fees, and damages for lost profits. As of now, all we know moving forward is that a jury trial has been requested.