Judge Rules That Nintendo Must Pay Percentage of Every 3DS Sold to Tomita Technologies

January 7, 2014 - GamePolitcs Staff

According to a report on Law 360 Nintendo must pay a percentage of its 3DS sales to Tomita Technologies. The company was ordered by U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff to pay 1.82 percent of the sale cost of every Nintendo 3DS and 3DS XL to Tomita Technologies International Ltd., which holds a patent for a glasses-less 3D display. The Judge ruled in December that Nintendo had in fact infringed on the company's patents.

In August a Judge ruled that Nintendo had to pay former Sony engineer Seijiro Tomita's company $15 Million in damages related to the patents.

Tomita will receive about $3.60 in royalties from every purchase. The 2DS, which does not use the 3D technology, will not be subject to the fee.

Source: Law 360 by way of CVG


Comments

Re: Judge Rules That Nintendo Must Pay Percentage of Every ...

Is Nintendo infringing on the technology driving the glasses-free 3D display or just the idea of glasses-free 3D?

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Judge Rules That Nintendo Must Pay Percentage of Every ...

That's been the problem since the beginning - this guy actually marketed his tech to Nintendo, but Nintendo was fielding designs from ten other companies, and eventually chose Panasonic as the manufacturer of the tech.  As such, I believe that this guy - if he's getting money from anyone - should be getting it from Panasonic, as they are the manufacturer of the technology in question, instead of Nintendo.

All I've ever heard is that this guy feels them using glasses-free 3D infringes on his patent, not that the technology in and of itself does.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: Judge Rules That Nintendo Must Pay Percentage of Every ...

That depends. The obvious (to my not-even-close-to-being-a-lawyer mind, at least) argument would be patent exhaustion, but that only comes into play if Panasonic licensed the technology legitimately. I couldn't easily turn up any information on a Tomita/Panasonic lawsuit, though, so I have no idea if that's the case or not.

If Panasonic is in fact the original infringer, then depending on the research Nintendo did before going with them, a claim of contributory infringement would not be entirely implausible.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician