Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.

1994 WL 560607 (1994)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.

United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
1994 WL 560607 (1994)

  • Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD

Facts

Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation (Fairchild) (plaintiff) produced home video entertainment systems and was assigned rights for the ’791 patent. The ’791 patent claims described a game apparatus connected to a television that included a console with parameter-selection switches and a game-cartridge chute containing connector and locking mechanisms. As the claims detailed, the locking mechanism activated automatically when a cartridge was inserted, and a physical catch held the cartridge in place against pressure from a spring-loaded rotating connector. The connector mechanism provided an electrical connection between the game and console and utilized a low-friction game-cartridge assembly that locked into place with a spring. The console also included multiple parameter-selection switches. Nintendo Co., Ltd. (Nintendo) (defendant) released the Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES), a console that connected to a television and read game data from cartridges. The console had a locking mechanism for cartridges that was activated by the console’s power switch and was not physically part of the cartridge chute. The SNES’s connector mechanism used a high-friction edge-card connector without a lock or spring. Additionally, the SNES had parameter-selection switches on both the console and the hand controllers. Fairchild filed suit against Nintendo arguing that the SNES’s locking mechanism, connector design, and parameter switches infringed on the ’791 patent.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Coughenour, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 806,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership