Nintendo lost a lawsuit in the U.K. against Koninklijke Philips last Friday where the company was found infringing on two of the Dutch technology company's patents with motion technology used for the Wii and Wii U.
According to court documents filed in the U.S. last month, Philips filed suit against Nintendo for infringing upon a patent for motion control and another for wireless devices that can be remotely controlled by a second device. The suit outlined that Nintendo's Wii, Wii Remote and Wii Remote Plus controllers, Nunchuk, Balance Board, Wii U console, Wii U GamePad, Wii Mini and Wii MotionPlus technology are all in violation of the first patent. The Wii U and GamePad console ecosystem were identified in the suit as infringing upon the second.
"The common general knowledge did not include a device combining a physical motion sensor with a camera and the reasons advanced by Nintendo for putting those two sensors together in one unit are unconvincing," Judge Colin Birss stated in the decision at the U.K. High Court. The judge ruled that Nintendo didn't violate a third patent regarding modeling a user in a virtual environment.
Philips is suing Nintendo over the patents in other countries such as the U.S., Germany and France. Nintendo is of the opinion that the two patents for recognizing hand gestures and motion are invalid and it plans to appeal the decision against the technology used in its Wii products.
"Nintendo has a long history of developing innovative products while respecting the intellectual property rights of others," the company said in a press statement. "Nintendo is committed to ensuring that this judgment does not affect continued sales of its highly acclaimed line of video game hardware, software and accessories and will actively pursue all such legitimate steps as are necessary to avoid any interruptions to its business."
A lawsuit filed by technology company Triton Tech of Texas, LLC accusing Nintendo of infringing on its patents with Wii Remotes was dismissed by a federal appeals court earlier this month. The decision marked a second time that Triton's patent was found invalid as it did not adequately describe a complete invention.