Wii Remote Lawsuit Ends in $10M Verdict Against Nintendo

Nintendo says it will fight verdict

Wii Remote and Nunchuck Credit: Evan-Amos on Wikipedia

A jury in Dallas, Texas today awarded $10 million to iLife after finding that Nintendo of America infringed on iLife's motion-sensing accelerometer technology which the company used in the its Wii Remote controllers.

The jury began deliberating on the federal lawsuit at the end of the day yesterday and returned to deliberate this morning. The verdict came back about 11 a.m.

"On Aug. 31, 2017, a jury in Texas found that certain Wii and Wii U video game systems and software bundles infringed a patent belonging to iLife Technologies Inc. related to detecting if a person has fallen down," Nintendo said in a statement provided to Glixel. "The jury awarded iLife $10 million in damages. Nintendo disagrees with the decision, as Nintendo does not infringe iLife’s patent and the patent is invalid. Nintendo looks forward to raising those issues with the district court and with the court of appeals."

“Since 2013, Munck Wilson Mandala has represented iLife," Munck Wilson Mandala partner Jamil Alibhai, head of the firm’s litigation practice, said in a prepared statement sent to Glixel. "Today’s verdict is the result of our commitment to excellence and an outstanding team effort."

The award comes nearly four years after iLife Technologies Inc. and Dallas-based law firm Munck Wilson Mandala filed a $144 million patent infringement case against Nintendo.

The company iLife Technologies uses its tech to monitor infants to help prevent sudden infant death syndrome and the elderly to watch out for falls. But iLife argued that its patented technology could be used in other applications and was used by Nintendo in the creation of its motion-sensing Wii Remote controller.

Although iLife was initially seeking a $4 per unit royalty payment tied to 36 million Wii systems sold in the six years before the suit was filed, Nintendo argued that the patent filed by iLife was invalid because the written description in the patent wasn't properly written.

This story is developing.