Jacobs v. Nintendo of America, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
370 F.3d 1097 (2004)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Jordan Jacobs (plaintiff) owned U.S. Patent No. 5,059,958 (the ’958 patent) over a manually held, tilt-sensitive, non-joystick control box. The invention was a videogame controller that could be tilted while held by two hands to achieve a corresponding motion in the game. Analog Devices, Inc. (Analog) made a tilt-sensitive component, called an accelerometer, which did not itself infringe the ’958 patent but contributed to infringement when accelerometers were used in control boxes manufactured by others. In the context of settling an infringement lawsuit, Jacobs granted Analog an irrevocable license to engage in conduct that would infringe the ’958 patent, including the right to sell, import, and export accelerometers for use in tilt-sensitive control boxes. Jacobs further agreed not to sue Analog for infringing the ’958 patent. Subsequently, Jacobs sued Nintendo of America, Inc. (Nintendo) (defendant) for infringing the ’958 patent based on accelerometers that Nintendo had purchased from Analog. Nintendo made a videogame that used a tilting controller. The trial court granted summary judgment to Nintendo based on a finding of noninfringement, reasoning that Nintendo had an implied license by virtue of Analog. Jacobs appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bryson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
