Intellectual Property Law

Hillcrest Labs Sues Nintendo and Its Wii Video Game

By Brian Wm. Higgin

• Hillcrest Laboratories, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al

     Hillcrest Labs sued Nintendo of America (Redmond, WA, and Kyoto, Japan), maker of the widely-popular "Wii" (TM), for patent infringement on August 20, 2008, in the US District Court for the District of Maryland one day after its U.S. Patent 7,414,611 issued (three other US patents being asserted are 7,139,983, 7,158,118, 7,262,760). Rockville, MD-based Hillcrest alleges that Nintendo's "Wii" video game machines and remote controllers directly, contributorily, induce, and willfully infringe its patents. Hillcrest also filed a separate patent infringement action with the US International Trade Commission.

     Claim 1 of the '611 patent recites:

1. A system comprising: means for generating, from a first sensor, a first output associated with motion of a handheld device; means for detecting, by a second sensor, acceleration of said handheld device and outputting at least one second output; and means for processing said first output and said at least one second output, said processing means including: means for determining an orientation in which said handheld device is held using said at least one second output; and means for compensating said first output based on said determined orientation by performing a two-dimensional rotational transform on said first output to generate an output which is substantially independent of said orientation.

     Hillcrest is seeking monetary damages from Nintendo Japan and Nintendo of America, and a permanent injunction. In a publised statement, Hillcrest states that since 2001 it "has pioneered technology that allows consumers to interact with digital media on television using motion-control and pointing techniques. The company holds 29 patents in this area worldwide, and has filled for more than 100 related patents."

     The Washington, DC, office of Finnegan Henderson filed the complaint on behalf of Hillcrest.

Full post as published by Maryland Intellectual Property Law Blog on August 24, 2008 (boomark / email).