Patent Arcade: October 2016

Now Available! Legal Guide to Video Game Development, 2nd Ed.

posted 10/25/2016 05:10:00 PM by Unknown

...at bit.ly/LVGD2016 ...

From the ABA Store:

Written by experienced lawyers who work closely with software and video game developer clients, this is THE inside guide to the legal issues involved in taking an idea and creating a product, from beginning to end. This authoritative handbook takes you through the legal morass of producing a video game, from the moment you get the original idea through publication. This practical, prescriptive book is an essential resource for legal professionals with clients in the area as well as for video game developers.

Get yours today!

Apple v Samsung Oral Args at Supreme Court

posted 10/11/2016 01:24:00 PM by Unknown

For those following the Apple v. Samsung design patent wars, here's a good synopsis of the oral arguments that were held this morning at the United States Supreme Court.

If the link doesn't work, cut and paste this in your browser:
http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/11/13241446/samsung-vs-apple-supreme-court-design-patents

Update: Full Transcript of Arguments: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2016/15-777_1b82.pdf.

Lindsay Lohan’s Grand Theft Auto Suit Dismissed

posted 10/04/2016 06:39:00 PM by Patent Arcade Staff

Lindsay Lohan v. Take-Two Interactive Software Inc., 156443/2014, New York State Supreme Court, New York County (Manhattan).

In 2014 actress Lindsay Lohan filed suit against Take-Two Interactive Software Inc. claiming that the video game Grand Theft Auto V violated Lohan's privacy by using her likeness without her permission. Lohan accused Take-Two of basing the GTA character Lacey Jonas after her with its similar style of dress and mannerisms. The Jonas character is a celebrity who enlists other players to help her dodge paparazzi in a race throughout Hollywood. Lohan alleged that the character had a similar voice and similar physical features. She also stated that Take-Two unlawfully used her signature peace sign pose.

Earlier this month, the lawsuit was tossed out by a New York state appeals court after the court found Lohan’s likeness was not used in the Grand Theft Auto video game. The court stated that the game’s characters and unique storyline rendered it a work of fiction and satire, and therefore the game was protectable by the First Amendment.

The court also dismissed Lohan’s claim that her image was used in the video game’s advertising materials despite Lohan’s claim that the avatar used in the advertisements was a depiction of her.

Lohan’s attorney stated that they planned to appeal and we will provide updates in the event an appeal is filed.

CASE UPDATE: Oaklawn Jockey Club Inc. et al. v. Kentucky Downs LLC et al., case number 16-5582, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

posted 10/04/2016 06:37:00 PM by Patent Arcade Staff

Oaklawn Jockey Club Inc. et al. v. Kentucky Downs LLC et al.

Case No. 16-5582, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

In their recent brief Appellees Kentucky Downs, LLC and Exacta Systems, LLC argued the Sixth Circuit should throw out the trademark suit brought by Appellants Oaklawn Jockey Club and Churchill Downs (“track owners”).

Kentucky Downs operates a facility that offers historical horse racing for play. Kentucky Downs uses Exacta’s gaming system that allows people to place bets on historical horse races. The gaming system displays track owners’ names among other race information to its bettors. In 2010, Kentucky enacted a law requiring the location of the horse race be displayed after a wager is placed on a historical horse race. Kentucky Downs and Exacta state that the race location is most commonly identified using the track name and argue that the display of the track name does not suggest any sponsorship or affiliation with the track owners.

In October 2015, the track owners filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky arguing that the display of track names on the Exacta system constitutes trademark infringement. In April 2016, the District Court found that there was no trademark infringement and instead found that the Kentucky Downs and Exacta’s use of track names was both a non-trademark use and a fair use. Following the District Court’s decision, the track owners filed their appeal in the Sixth Circuit on May 3, 2016.

A depiction of the Exacta screens displaying the track names is below:

Exacta argues that the display of the track names is in a small, generic font that does not make use of any logo or stylized font that would demonstrate trademark usage. Additionally, Exacta argues that the use of the track names is a fair use because it is merely descriptive of the racetrack location.

We will continue to provide updates as this case progresses.