149 F. Supp. 3d 1167
N.D. Cal.2015Background
- Plaintiffs Blizzard and Valve (video game developers and copyright owners) sued Lilith and uCool for copyright infringement, alleging mobile games DotA Legends (Lilith) and Heroes Charge (uCool) copied characters, settings, terrain, background art, and other assets from Blizzard/Valve works.
- Complaint alleges dozens of Heroes Charge characters are derived from Blizzard/Valve characters; Plaintiffs submitted a Supplemental Report listing copyright registrations.
- uCool moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) (and alternatively for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e)); the claim against uCool is Plaintiffs’ Second Claim for Relief.
- Central legal issues: (1) whether Plaintiffs plausibly allege ownership of valid copyrights and standing; (2) whether Plaintiffs sufficiently allege that specific characters/assets are copyrightable; (3) whether Plaintiffs pleaded representative acts of infringement with adequate specificity.
- The court took judicial notice of Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Report (public Copyright Office filing) and dismissed the claim against uCool for failure to state a claim, granting leave to amend so Plaintiffs can plead copyrightability and representative infringements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership/standing | Plaintiffs allege they own the copyrights at issue and provided a Supplemental Report listing registrations | uCool contends Plaintiffs fail to identify which specific copyrights/uCool-infringed works or owners (e.g., Dota 2) and so lack standing | Court: Plaintiffs plausibly alleged ownership and standing based on the Complaint and Supplemental Report; ownership element satisfied at pleading stage |
| Copyrightability of characters | Plaintiffs claim many Warcraft/Dota characters are distinctive and copyrightable | uCool argues characters are not plausibly delineated or shown to be especially distinctive; many are stock/ scènes à faire | Court: Plaintiffs’ allegations are conclusory; they failed to plead facts showing any particular character is sufficiently delineated and especially distinctive — dismissal without prejudice |
| Representative acts of infringement / specificity | Plaintiffs point to dozens of allegedly derived characters and cite a few portraits as examples | uCool says complaint lacks representative sampling tying specific Heroes Charge characters to specific copyrighted works and features | Court: Complaint lacks representative acts and detail needed to evaluate substantial similarity; Plaintiffs must plead a representative sampling with detail in any amended complaint |
| Rule 12(e) more definite statement | Plaintiffs provided general lists and a Supplemental Report | uCool asks for specific identification of works, registrations, and what aspects of Heroes Charge infringe | Court: Because dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is warranted, court declines to rule on 12(e); Plaintiffs must cure deficiencies if they amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (copyright requires originality)
- Rice v. Fox Broad. Co., 330 F.3d 1170 (Ninth Circuit: elements of copyright infringement claim)
- DC Comics v. Towle, 802 F.3d 1012 (Ninth Circuit test for character copyrightability)
- Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435 (extrinsic test and analytic dissection for substantial similarity)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard requiring plausibility)