(Patent attorney) The patents in question are continuation patents. Essentially, Nintendo filed a patent application before Palworld was released that disclosed the mechanics Nintendo is patenting now. That original application only included claims covering a subset of the mechanics described in the application. They can continue filing additional applications with new claims that cover the mechanics described entirely in the original application and get the benefit of having the priority date of the original application so long as they meet certain requirements about the timing.
Original application: I invented A, B, C, D, E, and F and want A protected; here’s some $. Follow-up application 1: I want invention B protected, here’s some more $. Follow up application 2: I want C protected, here’s some more $.
Part of the idea behind it is that you don’t have to waste money protecting parts of what you invented that don’t pan out (additional claims cost additional money beyond a certain number of claims). It’s not particularly fair, since you can watch what a competitor does (as Nintendo has done here), and essentially backdate a patent as though you had filed for it before the competitor did their thing.
The terminology can be confusing, but "copyrighted" is often used interchangeably with "registered". Copyright in a work exists from the moment it's the work is created, but it's not "copyrighted" in the sense the judge is using until the work is registered with the Copyright Office. Registration is a requirement to sue for infringement. So a work is protected by copyright as soon as it's created, but it needs to be registered before one can sue for infringement. That can be done after the infringement occurs. For example, if a work is created in 2020 and someone infringes on the copyright beginning in 2021, the work can be registered in 2023 and the creator can sue for the past infringement (though not all of the same remedies are available).
The issue here is that the artists are making broad claims that DeviantArt infringed all of their works (by letting them be used as training data), even though they didn't register all of their works. Only some of the artists that are suing registered their works, and they may not have registered all of the works they are suing over. That's what the first sentence in the next paragraph is about: "[E]ven if plaintiffs narrow their allegations to limit them to Output Images that draw upon Training Images based upon copyrighted images..." The judge didn't misspeak here.
I had an escalation clause in my offer, but I adjusted it so it said something to the effect that the clause would only be in effect for comparable offers. Then I defined comparable offers to be offers that were for the same type of loan with a minimum down payment and deposit amount. I wanted to protect against the buyers getting a higher offer that they were likely to reject on some other basis, but using that higher offer to make me pay more for the house. The downside was that I could be beat out by other legitimate buyers whose escalation clause didn't consider the quality of the offer they were beating. I cared more about not feeling like I was being swindled though. I got the house after about a $10k escalation, and the seller's agent presented the competing offer so I could verify it met the conditions of my escalation clause.
I did this. I was a developer my whole adult life and jumped from that to law school in my 30's. Graduated, become an attorney, decided I wanted to code again after a few years, and became a developer again. By the time I made the decision to switch back, I was out of hands-on development for about the same amount of time as you. I worked on a lot of different things as a developer, so it was hard to pick just one thing to brush up on. I figured I would try to get an interview for something I was interested in, then brush up on whatever tech stack the company was looking for. I applied for a job that required a niche skill I had and was surprised I got a call after my first job application. I got past the HR phone screen and had about a two-week gap to prepare between the HR phone screen and the first technical interview. I was doing well on the technical parts of the interview, but the hiring manager was noticeably checked out the entire time (he even took a phone call during the interview). I got the feeling he didn't review my resume before the interview and was annoyed I got past the initial phone screen since I hadn't coded professionally in years. The team member he had on the interview with him was much more interested and kept the interview going.
A week later, the HR person called back and said the hiring manager was concerned by how long it had been since I was a developer. That's what I expected would be the problem, so I changed strategies. I decided to get my foot in the door and work my way back up to the level I was at before I went to law school. That worked and I got a job that paid way less than my attorney salary and about 25% less than I was making as a developer at my last position (not accounting for inflation). I've enjoyed the job enough that I put "working my back up" on hold.
I don't know your situation and how big a pay cut you're willing to take, but that worked for me. Don't get discouraged, it's definitely possible. I'm "caught up" in my tech stack and feel comfortable enough to interview elsewhere, but I don't want to right now.
Original application: I invented A, B, C, D, E, and F and want A protected; here’s some $. Follow-up application 1: I want invention B protected, here’s some more $. Follow up application 2: I want C protected, here’s some more $.
Part of the idea behind it is that you don’t have to waste money protecting parts of what you invented that don’t pan out (additional claims cost additional money beyond a certain number of claims). It’s not particularly fair, since you can watch what a competitor does (as Nintendo has done here), and essentially backdate a patent as though you had filed for it before the competitor did their thing.