A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
They have applied for and received Patents in the US recently that pertain to their case against pocketpair
Nintendo obtained yet another just last week, it seems, as reported by Games Fray – and one yesterday. The new US patents include one related to a “smooth switching of riding objects” mechanism, and another that’s far more concerning, as it could change the way that non-Pokemon creature collectors work forever: a patent covering the summoning of a “character” (in Palworld’s case, that would be a Pal) and using it in combat against others.<
True, thanks. WIPO has made sure differences between national patent laws, if any, are minor.
What the Law requires for an inventive step?
a patent shall not be granted for an invention where a person ordinarily skilled in the art could have been easily make the invention based on the prior art at the time of filing. Thus, the law requires that a patentable invention should involve such an inventive step that the skilled person could not have made the invention based on the prior art at the time of filing.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let’s Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates.
(Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources.
If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
Free legal advise to Nintendo:
https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2141.html
US patent law doesn’t apply to Japan, where this case is ongoing
They have applied for and received Patents in the US recently that pertain to their case against pocketpair
True, thanks. WIPO has made sure differences between national patent laws, if any, are minor.
https://www.jpaa.or.jp/en/ip-information/patent-others/
Seeing as both nations are fascistic, they’ll lobby both judicials to get their way.
This is the case of buyers rewarding the abuser: conmerit emptor.