Comment on Nintendo's Creature Capture Patent Dealt Blow Amid Palworld Lawsuit
Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 5 days ago
As part of their ongoing lawsuit, Nintendo is claiming PalWorld has violated those... now invalid patents, so Nintendo's overall case against PalWorld is now significantly more weak.
That directly contradicts your quote:
Since the application isn't cited in the Palworld patent lawsuit directly, its rejection won't have a direct impact on the ongoing case. However, as explained by Games Fray's analyst Florian Mueller, the newly rejected application is a "key building block" in Nintendo's strategy to capture a wide range of creature-capture system implementations. It is the child of patent JP7493117 and the parent of JP7545191, both of which are cited in Nintendo's complaint.
IANAL, but IIRC atl in US law "child patent" just means it adds new claims to the parent patents' technology, so this just invalidates the parts that Nintendo did not use in its lawsuit.
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 days ago
The rejected patent is both a child, and parent of patents cited in the lawsuit.
Read that last quoted sentence again.
So, sure, it doesn’t directly effect JP7493117 in the case, as it came afterward… but it does make Nintendo’s use of JP7545191 in the lawsuit look less credible.
That and the… entire fact that Nintendo is very obviously spamming the patent system.
Image
I’m getting this out of a translator:
The lawsuit against Palworld began on September 18 2024.
Here’s that last actual patent, a child of the one just rejected.
…inpit.go.jp/…/JPA 2024149570-000000.pdf
Now, I am not a lawyer, don’t speak barely any Japanese, and am certainly not a Japanese lawyer… but…
This is from the translated summary from the webportal, I am unable to directly link to that page as it is using java or wasm or something:
(Reiwa roughly means Imperial Era, its kind of a cultural artefact / quirk of their calendar system. Reiwa 6 began in 2019.)
This patent (JP7545191) was published… after… Nintendo’s lawsuit began.
Meaning that Palworld is being sued, at least in part, for violating a patent that did not exist prior to the start of the lawsuit, a patent which builds off of the failed patent that this article is saying was just struck down and would need to be appealed.
So… again not a lawyer, but that seems like insane bullshit that would piss off a judge, to me.
Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 5 days ago
(The conversation continues... in https://kbin.melroy.org/m/games@sh.itjust.works/t/1284060/Nintendo-s-Creature-Capture-Patent-Dealt-Blow-Amid-Palworld-Lawsuit/comment/9813866#entry-comment-9813866 !(