Patent Arcade

I don't normally track foreign video game cases, but perhaps I should. However, it does make one more category of work for me in view of all my regular work and blogging efforts. If only I had some help... In any event, a reader (thanks Tim!) passed this morsel along, and its worth sharing.

Square Enix, the company best known for the Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest and Kingdom Hearts titles, recently won a copyright infringement lawsuit in South Korea over Fantom Entertainment Group over unauthorized use of scenes from Square Enix’s Final Fantasy VII: ADVENT CHILDREN, a CG-animated film. According to the press release, “the amount of damages awarded [300 Million Korean Won] … in this case is the largest the courts in South Korea have ever awarded in cases infringing one single work of art.” Square-Enix’s GC remarked that “Square Enix will continue to take decisive action against any infringements upon the Company’s intellectual property, recognizing that this property is one of our most crucial resources."

The infringing subject matter at issue has to do with a scene from FFVII: Advent Children, and a music video from Korean singer Ivy in the song “Sonata of Temptation.” The Korean singer appropriated the content from Square-Enix without their permission or authorization. Below are the links to the respective videos; the similarities between the two are immediately apparent, and quite striking.

Original Content from FFVII: Advent Children

Ivy - Sonata of Temptation (Music Video)

Square Enix Press Release

(Thanks to Tim Hsieh for finding this)

Labels: Copyrights, Lawsuits

Somehow this well reported case got overlooked here at the Patent Arcade, and that appears to be because I thought I'd already written about it. In any event, it now gets its own post...

On October 24, 2007, six content owners in Second Life sued Thomas Simon, aka Rase Kenzo, for infringing their copyrights in various online goods. Also included in the complaint were counts for unfair competition and false description of origin, conspiracy, and counterfeiting. The goods included clothing and scripted furniture (aka, sex beds), among other things. After only two months it appears that Mr. Simon saw the light and the plaintiffs proved their point--the case settled in December, 2007, for about $525, and an agreement by Mr. Simon to cease his questionable activities.

At the very least this case is important because it demonstrates the seriousness that many Second Life content creators give to their businesses, treating their intellectual property just as any other business would. The stakes will only get higher as virtual worlds such as Second Life get bigger, and the players have even more money at stake.

Documents:

Complaint-07_10_24_eros_et_al_v_simon_complaint.pdf

Settlement-ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov_cgi-bin_show_temp.pdf

Labels: Copyrights, Lawsuits, MMOG, Trademarks

Eros, the maker of the Second Life sex bed, sued the avatar Volkov Catteneo for illegally copying and selling unlicensed copies of the sex bed, thereby infringement the intellectual property of Eros. After serving subpoenas on PayPal, Linden Labs, Charter Communications and AT&T, Volkov was determined to be Robert Leatherwood. The case, filed in the Middle District of Florida (case 8:07-cv-1158-T-24TGW), was recently settled by the parties. The settlement should be finalized soon, and the terms include a provision that Leatherwood will not do any more copying.

Read more.

Labels: Copyrights, Lawsuits

Ever wonder what the basic principles are for protecting your video game based on intellectual property law? Steve and I wrote this article, recently published on Gamasutra, that provides a brief introduction to what you need to know to help protect your game and your brand.

Download PDF version.

Labels: Articles, Copyrights, Patents, Resources

From IP Law360:

MGA Entertainment, makers of the popular Bratz dolls, will hand over $13.2 million to video game company Ubisoft Entertainment, after an arbitrator ruled that Ubisoft had not violated the

Bratz trademark but MGA had violated a contract between the two companies.
Ubisoft had obtained a license from MGA for the right to make video games based on the Bratz franchise in the spring of 2002.

But in 2003, MGA purported to terminate the license under the claim that Ubisoft had failed to release a “substantial number” of the games in Europe, which was one of the provisions in the licensing agreement.

Ubisoft argued that it had not breached the license and continued to make Bratz video games. MGA promptly sued, alleging copyright infringement for producing the Bratz games without a license and breach of contract.

Ubisoft counter-sued for invalid termination of the licensing agreement. The case then went to arbitration.

Last year, the arbitrator decided that Ubisoft had been correct and the termination was wrongful. It awarded Ubisoft the $13.2 million in lost profits, attorneys' fees and interest.

Unsatisfied with the verdict, MGA then challenged the award in a Los Angeles county court. However, that motion was later denied. MGA agreed to pay the award in late-December 2007. The judgment order was entered on Feb. 8.

More more information, read the full article here.

Labels: Copyrights, Lawsuits

C.B.C. Distribution and Marketing, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P., et al.

--- F.3d ---, 2007 WL 2990366, 84 U.S.P.Q.2d 1328 (8th Cir. 2007)

In a much watched case, on October 16, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit decided C.B.C. Distribution and Marketing, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P., et al., regarding whether it is ok for fantasy sports operators to use professional athletes’ names and historical statistics without a license from the players, the players association and/or the relevant league. In this case, the sport is baseball, but the ruling can be applied across the board to any fantasy sports league. In this case, the Eighth Circuit held that C.B.C. Distribution and Marketing, Inc. (“CBC”), a provider of online fantasy baseball products, could use the names of and statistics of Major League Baseball (“MLB”) players without a license from Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P. (“Advanced Media”), a MLB holding company to whom The Major League Baseball Players Association (“the Players Association”) had granted the exclusive right “to use baseball players’ names and performance information ‘for exploitation via all interactive media.’” Slip. Op. at 3. MLB and Advanced Media unsuccessfully argued that CBC’s use of player names and statistics was a violation of the players’ rights of publicity, copyright infringement, and breach of contract, among other theories. The court held that the fantasy sports operator's actions were protected under the First Amendment.

In 1995, the Players Association first granted CBC a license to use the names of MLB players and their corresponding statistics in fantasy baseball games. In 2002, the Players Association granted CBC a renewed license, which gave CBC the rights to use “the names, nicknames, likenesses, signatures, pictures, playing records, and/or biographical data of each player” in connection with CBC’s fantasy baseball products. Slip. Op. at 3. When this renewed license expired in 2005, however, the Players Association did not grant CBC another renewed license. Instead, the Players Association granted the exclusive right “to use baseball players’ names and performance information ‘for exploitation via all interactive media’” to Advanced Media (the MLB holding company mentioned above). Id. After Advanced Media received this exclusive license from the Players Association, it approached CBC and proposed a license under which CBC could promote fantasy baseball games on MLB.com, but could not continue offering its own fantasy baseball products. CBC subsequently brought this declaratory judgment lawsuit, seeking a court decree that it could continue to use the names of and statistics related to MLB players without a license from Advanced Media.

At issue in this case was whether MLB could exercise exclusive control over the fantasy baseball business by limiting others’ access to factual player information (i.e., names and statistics). In order to exercise this control, MLB, acting through the Players Association and Advanced Media, tried to establish that CBC’s use of the names of MLB players and their corresponding statistics violated rights of publicity, was copyright infringement, and was a breach of the previous licensing contract. At the trial court level, MLB argued that CBC was violating the baseball players’ individual rights of publicity, which are protected under state law (Missouri state law in this case, pursuant to federal jurisdictional rules). Although the trial court held that MLB failed to establish these state-law rights, the Eighth Circuit reversed this determination and found that state-law rights of publicity were implicated. However, the Eighth Circuit further held that First Amendment considerations (i.e., the “right to use information that is available to everyone”) trumped these state-law rights. Significantly, in deciding that these state-law rights “must give way” to First Amendment considerations, the Eighth Circuit characterized the baseball players’ names and their corresponding statistics as information that is “readily available in the public domain.” Slip. Op. at 7. Because MLB (or anyone else for that matter) cannot exercise exclusive control over information in the public domain, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of CBC, thus allowing CBC to continue using MLB players’ names and statistics without a license.

(Earlier in the case, MLB and Advanced Media also tried to argue that the use of player names and statistics was an infringement of one or more copyrights owned by MLB. MLB argued that it owned a copyright in the compilation of names and statistics. The court didn’t buy it and indicated that the names and statistics were public domain factual information.)

So for those of you running your own fantasy sports sites (or at least fantasy baseball sites), the decision in this case means that you can make use of the same information as CBC (i.e., player names and statistics) without obtaining a license from the relevant professional sports league. However, you should still consult a lawyer regarding your particular situation, because the ruling in this case involves some complicated interactions between state and federal law, and perhaps could have been decided differently by a different court with respect to the rights of publicity issues.

Labels: Copyrights, Lawsuits

As reported on GamePolitics.com, Later today the ECA will announce its support for HR1201, known as the Fair Use Act of 2007. The proposed legislation will give consumers limited rights to circumvent technological control measures for private, noncommercial uses that would otherwise be protected under the DMCA. We will track this new legislation and keep everyone posted.

Ross

Labels: Copyrights, News

MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. et al.

United States District Court, District of Arizona

Case No. 2:2006cv02555, Filed October 25, 2006

On October 25, 2006, MDY Industries, LLC (“MDY”) filed a declaratory judgment action against Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. (“Blizzard”) and Vivendi, SA (“Vivendi”), Blizzard’s parent company, in the U.S. District Court in Arizona seeking, among other things, a decree from the court that MDY has not violated any of Blizzard’s intellectual property rights relating to the “World of Warcraft” video game.

MDY sells a software application called “WoW Glider” (also known as “Glider”) that essentially automates game play in Blizzard’s World of Warcraft. This automation, however, violates Blizzard’s Terms of Service for World of Warcraft, a fact that MDY actually admits in the “Frequently Asked Questions” portion of the Glider website. See http://mmoglider.com/FAQ.aspx#G3. In addition to allowing gamers to feel like lawless rebels, Glider appeals to World of Warcraft players because World of Warcraft is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) in which players must spend a great deal of time playing in order to “level up” their characters. Although it would seem strange that gamers would want to find a way to play less, the leveling in World of Warcraft is really only a part of the game, and a tedious part at that. Indeed, once a player reaches the maximum level, he or she can begin playing the “end game” content that is typically more challenging and dynamic than the other game content. Moreover, in addition to automating leveling, Glider also automates some of the other more tedious tasks in World of Warcraft, such as “grinding” reputation and “farming” gold, by automatically and repeatedly killing certain computer-controlled enemies. Glider accomplishes this automation by simulating the keystrokes and mouse movement that would normally be the control input from the player. Thus, instead of playing World of Warcraft for hours to level, grind, or farm, a player can configure Glider to perform whatever tasks he or she desires, and then leave Glider to play accordingly. As Blizzard sees it, however, Glider allows players to cheat by gaining an unfair advantage over others, thus detracting from everyone else’s gaming experience. Unfortunately for Blizzard, Glider was more than a mere demon that could be baninshed, and so they resorted to legal action to stop this alleged cheating.

According to MDY’s complaint, representatives for Blizzard and Vivendi appeared unannounced, (as if by magic?), at the private residence of Michael Donnelly, the sole member of MDY according to Blizzard, on the morning of October 25, 2006. At this confrontation, the Blizzard and Vivendi representatives allegedly accused MDY of copyright infringement, Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) violations, and interference with the contractual relationships between Blizzard and World of Warcraft users. The Blizzard and Vivendi representatives also presented Donnelly with a complaint against him and MDY that included all of these charges, and threatened to file this complaint in a federal court in California if he did not comply with their demands. In imminent apprehension of being sued, MDY brought this declaratory judgment action against Blizzard and Vivendi the same day.

Notwithstanding whether Glider’s violation of the Terms of Service for World of Warcraft is interference with contractual relationships, the real issue in this lawsuit is whether Blizzard can prevent MDY from distributing Glider. Indeed, in February 2007, Blizzard filed an answer to MDY’s complaint in which Blizzard asserted counterclaims against MDY seeking injunctive relief and money damages. In these counterclaims, Blizzard argued that it is entitled to an injunction and money damages against MDY based on, among other things, copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and trafficking in technology designed for the purpose of circumventing copyright protection systems in violation of the DMCA. MDY filed an answer to Blizzard’s counterclaims in March 2007 in which MDY denied most of Blizzard’s accusations and raised various affirmative defenses to all of Blizzard’s counterclaims.

As of August 2007, this case is in discovery under a protective order and will remain in fact discovery until January 25, 2008. For now, World of Warcraft players can still use Glider to do their virtual dirty work (as long as they are willing to risk being banned from World of Warcraft for a Terms of Service violation, that is).

Thanks to Rajit Kapur for his assistance with the preparation of this case summary.

Labels: Copyrights, Lawsuits, MMOG

An Illinois man was sentenced to two years in prison for violating copyright law through the unauthorized sale of video games on his Web site, the U.S. Department of Justice announced late Thursday, August 2, 2007.

Timothy W. Hall, of Mount Vernon, Ill., pleaded guilty May 8 to one count of criminal copyright infringement for his unlawful distribution of hundreds of thousands of copyright works on his Web site, Morbidbackups.net. Hall advertised the sale of hundreds of video games, for Xbox, GameCube, PlayStation 2, and other platforms, on recordable CDs. Hall also offered DVDs containing movies and television programs, the DOJ said.

Video game crime doesn't pay!

Read more here.

Labels: Copyrights, News

Well its not a video game lawsuit, but interesting nonetheless. And, yes, this post could be considered shameless self-promotion. Nonetheless, I was recently quoted in USA Today in an article regarding the Facebook lawsuit, and it's even a good sound bite! Usually quotes get taken out of context or they use the quote that you wish you never said (remember the "work hard, play hard" debacle?) In any event, I thought it noteworthy, so enjoy...

Labels: Copyrights, News

Courts have held that artists' copyright protection can extend beyond their literal pictorial works, and some courts have even insinuated that an artist can receive copyright expression for their artistic style, e.g., Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Inc., 663 F.Supp. 706 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) (holding that cover artist for The New Yorker's copyright protection extended beyond literal copying of his work, and that poster for Moscow on the Hudson infringed his copyright).

The Simpsons, a popular TV show, video game, and now movie, are easily recognizable for the cartoonish style originated by its creator, Matt Groening:


Well now you, too, can look like the Simpsons. Yes, that's right, at SIMPSONIZEME.COM you can upload a picture of yourself and see what you would look like in Springfield, AS (AS=AnyState). In case you're curious, here I am in simpsonized form:

Labels: Copyrights, News

We previously reported that Konami Corporation sued Roxor Games, Inc. in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging patent infringement, trademark infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution, and trade dress infringement, under both Federal and Texas law, regarding Konami's game Dance Dance Revolution. It appears that we won't see trial or a decision on this case, as they settled out of court as of last autumn (ok, I'm a little late posting on this... sorry). The settlement gives Konami full control of In the Groove's intellectual property rights.

More details here.

Labels: Copyrights, Lawsuits, Patents

Judge Kosinski opens his opinion by positing the most poignant of questions: “Duke Nukem routinely vanquishes Octabrain and the Protozoid Slimer. But what about the dreaded Micro Star?” Duke Nukem 3D, the well known first person shooter that was distributed and owned by FormGen Inc., included an editor that enabled players to create their own levels [Editor’s Note: I once created a map duplicating two decks of a Carnival cruise ship. Regrettably, it didn’t make it onto the CD at issue]. Player-created levels could be posted onto the Internet for download by other players. Micro Star acquired 300 user-created levels, placed them onto a CD, and sold that CD commercially as Nuke It, whose packaging displayed screen shots of the new levels. FormGen threatened to sue, so Micro Star sought a declaratory judgment for non-infringement of FormGen’s copyrights in the game, while FormGen counterclaimed for a preliminary injunction against future copyright infringement by Micro Star. While the district court did grant a preliminary injunction as to the use of the screen shots, it also held that Nuke It was not a derivative work and therefore did not infringe FormGen’s copyright.

On appeal, Kozinski focused on whether Micro Star copied FormGen’s protected expression. Ultimately, the Court disagreed with Micro Star’s arguments that Nuke It was not a derivative work because the MAP files, which contain the instructions defining the custom levels, did not incorporate in a concrete or permanent form any of Duke Nukem 3D’s protected expression (i.e., the artwork rendered onto the screen). Instead, the Court found Nuke It to be a derivative work in concrete or permanent form because it was embodied onto a CD and the MAP files described in detail the audiovisual display that appears on the computer monitor. Additionally, Micro Star’s motive of financial gain worked against their position and foreclosed their ability to assert fair use protection. By selling Nuke It, the Court held, Micro Star “impinged on FormGen’s ability to market new versions of the Duke Nukem 3D story” and “only FormGen [as the owner of the copyright] has the right to enter that market.” FormGen, therefore, did not abandon their right to profit commercially from new levels by granting a license to players to freely distribute new levels to other players. Thus, FormGen received a preliminary injunction as to Nuke It’s commercial distribution. Now if only 3D Realms would hurry up and release Duke Nukem Forever, because we’re all getting a little tired their mantra “it’s done when it’s done…”

Labels: Copyrights, Lawsuits

Today the Free Software Foundation released version 3 of the GNU General Public License. The new version of the license contains a lengthy patent license provision, copied below, that users should be aware of. Given that GNU GPLv3 might apply to some code used in your game, you should read it and make sure you understand all its ramifications. Give us a call if you need legal representation regarding open source contract issues, and we can discuss your situation.

---cut here---

11. Patents.

A “contributor” is a copyright holder who authorizes use under this License of the Program or a work on which the Program is based. The work thus licensed is called the contributor's “contributor version”.

A contributor's “essential patent claims” are all patent claims owned or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, permitted by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor version, but do not include claims that would be infringed only as a consequence of further modification of the contributor version. For purposes of this definition, “control” includes the right to grant patent sublicenses in a manner consistent with the requirements of this License.

Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version.

In the following three paragraphs, a “patent license” is any express agreement or commitment, however denominated, not to enforce a patent (such as an express permission to practice a patent or covenant not to sue for patent infringement). To “grant” such a patent license to a party means to make such an agreement or commitment not to enforce a patent against the party.

If you convey a covered work, knowingly relying on a patent license, and the Corresponding Source of the work is not available for anyone to copy, free of charge and under the terms of this License, through a publicly available network server or other readily accessible means, then you must either (1) cause the Corresponding Source to be so available, or (2) arrange to deprive yourself of the benefit of the patent license for this particular work, or (3) arrange, in a manner consistent with the requirements of this License, to extend the patent license to downstream recipients. “Knowingly relying” means you have actual knowledge that, but for the patent license, your conveying the covered work in a country, or your recipient's use of the covered work in a country, would infringe one or more identifiable patents in that country that you have reason to believe are valid.

If, pursuant to or in connection with a single transaction or arrangement, you convey, or propagate by procuring conveyance of, a covered work, and grant a patent license to some of the parties receiving the covered work authorizing them to use, propagate, modify or convey a specific copy of the covered work, then the patent license you grant is automatically extended to all recipients of the covered work and works based on it.

A patent license is “discriminatory” if it does not include within the scope of its coverage, prohibits the exercise of, or is conditioned on the non-exercise of one or more of the rights that are specifically granted under this License. You may not convey a covered work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the parties who would receive the covered work from you, a discriminatory patent license (a) in connection with copies of the covered work conveyed by you (or copies made from those copies), or (b) primarily for and in connection with specific products or compilations that contain the covered work, unless you entered into that arrangement, or that patent license was granted, prior to 28 March 2007.

Nothing in this License shall be construed as excluding or limiting any implied license or other defenses to infringement that may otherwise be available to you under applicable patent law.

---end of provision---

Labels: Copyrights, News, Patents

I recently wrote a short article regarding Film Sanitization, the practice of removing objectionable content from a movie without the copyright owner's consent. Groups remove the sex, violence, nudity, language, drug use, etc., to create versions suitable for "families and children." This raises various copyright issues, discussed in my article, which you can download and read here. The initial conclusion is that those who sanitize films without the copyright owner's consent do so at their own risk.

Similar issues could very well arise with respect to video games, except that it's harder to remove just the objectionable content from a video game without the help and assistance of the game's developer, as evidenced by the "Hot Coffee" exploit for Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. In any event, some issues to ponder, and you might just find the attached article an interesting, if brief, read.

FilmSanitization.pdf

Labels: Articles, Copyrights

Ghost Rider creator Gary Friedrich has apparently sued a whole host of people, including Take2 Interactive, over his rights in the Ghost Rider character. He claims to have rights to the character since 2001, yet there is a movie, merchandising, video game (that's where Take2 got sucked in), etc.

Sounds like the details are still a little fuzzy, but we'll add this case to our list and keep you posted as we hear more.

In the meantime, read more here.

Labels: Copyrights, Lawsuits

While not directly related to video games, this case may have some applicability to the game world, given the convergence of service providers and MMOs (think Linden Labs). In a solid win for the service providers/content providers (think YouTube or MySpace, or Second Life!), a federal appeals court has largely rejected Perfect 10's claim that a service provider violated laws by linking to sites that improperly posted its images. The March 29, 2007, decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling that CCBill "reasonanly implemented" a noninfringement policy under the DMCA, and was therefore not liable for widespread copyright infringement by numerous web sites that it linked to.

The case is Perfect 10 v. CCBill, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. March 29, 2007).

Read more here.

Labels: Copyrights, Lawsuits

As reported on Gamespot:

Nearly three years ago, Midway released Psi-Ops: The Mindgate Conspiracy, a third-person stealth-action game and--alongside The Suffering and Roadkill--one of a handful of then-recent original intellectual properties the company had brought to market. However, a Los Angeles County screenwriter is now claiming that the intellectual property wasn't all that original...

Read full story here.

The case is Crawford v. Midway Games Inc., C.D. Cal., Docket 2:07-cv-00967-FMC-JC

We'll start tracking this case and let you know of any significant developments.

Labels: Copyrights, Lawsuits

Looks like Joost is in Beta. If you haven't heard of Joost, it's a potential cable TV killer from the founders of Kazaa and Skype. Like Skype, this is legit on the copyright front, and could pose a serious threat to cable and satellite TV, because this time they are catering to the desires of content providers. There was an article in the February issue of Wired, which is a pretty good read. With this new content delivery system, it will be interesting to see if they build in the capability for episodic delivery of video games as well. We'll all just have to wait and see, unless,... if you have a Joost beta token, send one my way to rdannenberg@bannerwitcoff.com.

Labels: Copyrights, News

Still trying to wrap your head around intellectual property? The Patent Arcade provides the following video game IP resources for your use. Please keep in mind that all articles and publications are for informational purposes only, and are not intended as legal advice for any given scenario. Always consult an attorney with fact-specific questions if you have a specific scenario you need assistance with. I can be reached at (202) 824-3153, or rdannenberg@bannerwitcoff.com, if you would like to discuss a specific issue or need legal advice. -Ross Dannenberg

The Publications:

• Hey, That's MY Game! IP Protection for Video Games, by Ross Dannenberg & Steve Chang
  
• Film Sanitization, by Ross Dannenberg
  
• Top Ten [types of] Video Game Patents, by Ross Dannenberg & Steve Chang
• Copyright Preregistration of Video Games, by Marc Cooperman & Michael Krashin
• Patent Mythconceptions, by Ross Dannenberg & Steve Chang
• Preserving Patent Rights, by Ross Dannenberg
• IP Primer, by Ross Dannenberg & Jordan Bodner

Labels: Articles, Copyrights, Features, Patents, Resources

Marc Cooperman and Michael Krashin recently penned an article discussing preregistration of copyrights as an additional form of protection for video games. When video game software is pirated or leaked before the game's initial release, copyright preregistration provides an addition avenue of protection for video game developers. Their article discusses the basics of preregistration as well as some of the remedies preregistration provides.

Download the article here. (PDF)

Labels: Articles, Copyrights

Updated: May 16, 2008


To assist you in your research and review of the cases, this post will serve as a continuously updated index of the cases we're tracking. If you notice any that are missing, please let us know.

• Anascape Ltd. v. Microsoft et al. (E.D.Tex.) May 14, 2008
  
• Eros v. Leatherwood (M.D. Fla.) SETTLED 03/2008
  
• Activision v. Gibson Guitar, C.D. Cal, Filed March 12, 2008 (PENDING)
  
• Romantics v. Activision, __ F.Supp.2d __ (E.D. Mich. 2008)
  
• MGA v. Ubisoft (Los Angeles County Court) - Settled 2/2008
  
• Eros v. Simon (E.D.N.Y. 2008) SETTLED
  
• MicroUnity v. Sony Computer Entertainment America (E.D.Tex) - SETTLED 11/2007
  
• Beneficial Innovations v. Blackdot, filed June 20, 2007 (E.D.Tex.)
  
• WizKids, Inc. v. Wizards of the Coast, filed May 25, 2007 (W.D. Wa)
  
• KSR v. Teleflex (2007)
  
• Friedrich v. Marvel Enterprises, filed April 4, 2007
  
• Crawford v. Midway Games Inc., C.D. Cal., Docket 2:07-cv-00967-FMC-JC (filed 2007)
• MDY Industries (WoWglider) v. Blizzard Entertainment, (D.Az., filed 10/25/06), Docket No. 2-06-cv-02555-PHX-DGC.
  
• Bragg v. Linden Lab (PENDING) E.D.Pa.
  
• Fenner Investments v. Microsoft et al. (PENDING) E.D. Tex.
  
• Immersion v. Sony (PENDING) N.D. Cal. (on appeal to Federal Circuit)
  
• Konami v. Roxor Games (SETTLED) E.D.Tex.
• Lucent v. Microsoft (PENDING) S.D. Cal.
• MP Games v. Shufflemaster (PENDING) W.D. Wash
• Forterra Systems, Inc. v. Avatar Factory (PENDING) N.D. Cal.
  
• Freedom Wave v. Mad Catz (PENDING) C.D. Cal.
• Hasbro v. RADgames (PENDING) S.D.N.Y
• Int'l Gameco v. Multimedia Games, Inc. (PENDING) S.D. Cal.
• Home Gambling Network v. Piche et al. (PENDING) D.Nev.
• CBC v. Major League Baseball, __ F.3d __ (8th Cir. 2007)
  
• Planet Bingo v. Gametech Int'l, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. 2006)
• E.S.S. Entertainment 2000 v. Rock Star Video, __ F.Supp.2d __ (9th Cir. 2006)
  
• Davidson & Associates, Inc. v. Internet Gateway, __ F.3d. __ (8th Cir. 2006)
• Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. v. Filipiak (N.D. Cal., December 27, 2005)
  
• Marvel v. NCSoft (SETTLED 2005) C.D. Cal. (original post)
  
• Team Play Inc., et al. v. Boyer, __ F.Supp.2d __, 2005 WL 2413344 (N.D.Ill. Sep 28, 2005) (NO. 03 C 7240)
• JVW Enterprises, Inc. v. Interact Accessories, Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. 2005)
  
• Frosty Treats, Inc. v. Sony Computer Equipment America, Inc., __ F.3d __ (8th Cir, 2005)
  
• Incredible Techs., Inc. v. Virtual Techs., Inc., 400 F.3d 1007, 284 F. Supp. 2d 1069(7th Cir. 2005)
• Sega v. Fox (Settled) N.D. Cal. 2004
• Okor v. Atari Games Corp., 76 Fed. Appx. 327 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
• Sony Computer Entm't America, Inc. v. Bleem, LLC, 214 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2000)
• Sony Computer Entm't, Inc. v. Connectix Corp., 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000)
• Microstar v. Formgen Inc., 154 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1998)
• Ahn v. Midway Mfg. Co., 965 F. Supp. 1134 (N.D. Ill. 1997)
• Roginski v. Time Warner Interactive, Inc., 967 F. Supp. 821 (M.D. Pa. 1997)
• Alpex Computer Corp. v. Nintendo Co. Ltd., 102 F.3d 1214 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
• Nintendo of America, Inc. v. Brown, 94 F.3d 652 (9th Cir. 1996)
• Interactive Network Inc. v. NTN Communications, Inc., 875 F. Supp. 1398 (N.D. Cal. 1995)
• Atari Corp. v. Sega of America, Inc., 869 F. Supp. 783 (N.D. Cal. 1994)
• Sega v. MAPHIA, 857 F.Supp. 679 (N.D.Cal. 1994)
  
• Capcom U.S.A., Inc. v. Data East Corp., 1994 WL 1751482 (N.D. Cal. 1994)
• Midway Mfg. Co. v. Publ'ns Int'l, Ltd., 1994 WL 188531 (N.D. Ill. 1994)
• Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America, Inc., 30 U.S.P.Q.2d 1401 (N.D. Cal. 1993)
• Sega v. Accolade, 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992)
  
• Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America, Inc., 975 F.2d 832 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
• Atari Games Corp. v. Oman, 979 F.2d 242 (D.C. Cir. 1992)
• Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc., 964 F.2d 965 (9th Cir. 1992)
• Accolade, Inc. v. Distinctive Software, Inc., 1990 WL 180239 (N.D. Cal. 1990)
• Red Baron-Franklin Park, Inc. v. Taito Corp., 883 F.2d 275 (4th Cir. 1989)
• Data East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc., 862 F.2d 204 (9th Cir. 1988)
• Frybarger v. International Business Machines Corp., 812 F.2d 525 (9th Cir. 1987)
• Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 746 F.2d 112 (2nd Cir. 1986)
• Magnavox Co. v. Activision, Inc., 1985 WL 9496 (N.D. Cal. 1985)
• Atari, Inc. v. JS & A Group, Inc., 597 F. Supp 5 (N.D. Ill. 1983)
• Midway Mfg. Co. v. Artic Int'l, Inc., 704 F.2d 1009 (7th Cir. 1983)
• Midway Mfg. Co. v. Dirkschneider, 571 F. Supp. 282 (D.C. Neb. 1983)
• Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Elecs. Group Corp., 672 F.2d 607 (7th Cir. 1982)
• In Re Certain Coin-Operated Audiovisual Games and Components Thereof (viz, Pac-Man and Rally-X), No. 337-TA-105 (ITC 1982)
• Stern Elec. V. Kaufman, 669 F.2d 852, 213 USPQ 443 (2d Cir. 1982)
• The Magnavox Co. v. Mattel, Inc., 216 U.S.P.Q. 28 (N.D.Ill. 1982)
  
• Williams Electronics, Inc. v. Artic International, Inc., 685 F.2d 870, 215 USPQ 405 (3rd Cir. 1982)
• Activision v. Atari (Settled, 1982)
  
• Atari, Inc. v. Amusement World, Inc., 547 F. Supp. 222 (D. Md. 1981)
• In Re Coin-Operated Audio-Visual Games and Components Thereof, No. 337-TA-87, 214 USPQ 217 (ITC 1981)
• Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Omni Video Games, Inc., 668 F.2d 70 (1st Cir. 1981)
• Midway Mfg. v. Dirkschneider, 543 F.Supp 466 (D.Neb 1981)
• The Magnavox Co. v. Chicago Dynamic Industries, 201 U.S.P.Q. 25 ( N.D.Ill. 1977)
  

Don't worry, we'll get to them all... eventually.

Labels: Copyrights, Features, Lawsuits, MMOG, Patents, Resources, Trademarks