GC2 Inc. v. Int'l Game Tech., IGT
391 F. Supp. 3d 828
E.D. Ill.
2019

Background

  • GC2 created artwork for six land-based slot games and licensed certain uses to IGT NV; a 2007 amendment reserved GC2's online gaming rights.
  • IGT Holding (parent), IGT NV (land-based games), Doubledown (online/social casino platform), and Masque (publisher) produced/distributed online versions using GC2 artwork without GC2's authorization.
  • GC2 sued for copyright infringement and DMCA §1202 violations (alleging removal/alteration/distribution of copyright management information); trial in Jan 2019 produced a unanimous jury verdict for GC2.
  • Jury found direct and vicarious infringement by all defendants, contributory infringement by IGT Holding/IGT NV/Doubledown, and 696 DMCA violations tied to repeated uploads/reuploads of two games; copyright damages and disgorged profits totaled about $16.28M, DMCA statutory damages totaled $1.74M.
  • Post-trial motions: defendants sought JMOL, new trial/remittitur, and fees; GC2 sought permanent injunction, supplemental damages, prejudgment interest, and fees.
  • Court: denied defendants’ JMOL/new-trial/fee motions; granted permanent injunction (narrowed to exclude existing Masque brochures); denied supplemental damages; awarded prejudgment interest on Copyright Act damages only; denied GC2’s fee request.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Sufficiency of evidence for DMCA dual-scienter (knowledge + intent) Evidence (license reserve, contractual obligations, business practices, reupload behavior) allowed reasonable inference of both scienter layers for each upload. No adequate evidence of knowing/intentional conduct for each of the 696 uploads; reliance on circumstantial/after-the-fact negotiation evidence insufficient. Court: Evidence sufficient; JMOL denied. Jury verdict upheld.
Whether DMCA §1202(b) applies to collaborative/derivative works or only to "original" plaintiff product GC2: statute protects identifying information conveyed with works; removal/liability not limited to single-author originals. Defendants: §1202(b) only covers removal from plaintiff's original product; collaborative/derivative works fall outside. Court: Rejected categorical limitation; statute covers the facts here. JMOL denied.
Whether each reupload constitutes a separate DMCA violation and whether theory was surprise GC2: each upload/reupload of server-stored assets (including three sizes) is a separate distribution/violation; upload-reupload theory disclosed pretrial and in evidence. Defendants: surprise ambush by new upload theory; only initial distributions (not routine reuploads) should count—count far fewer violations. Court: No unfair surprise; jury could rationally find 696 violations (counting reuploads and three variants). Motion for new trial/remittitur denied.
Remedies: permanent injunction, supplemental damages, prejudgment interest, attorney fees GC2: irreparable harm from continued online availability; damages insufficient to prevent future harm; seeks injunctive relief, supplemental damages, prejudgment interest, and fees. Defendants: have taken steps to remove content; injunction undue burden (e.g., Masque brochures); supplemental damages improper; prejudgment interest on statutory DMCA damages inappropriate; fees unwarranted. Court: Permanent injunction granted but excludes existing Masque brochures; supplemental damages denied (GC2 forfeited evidence of future profits); prejudgment interest awarded only on Copyright Act damages (not DMCA statutory damages); attorney's fees denied for both sides.

Key Cases Cited

  • Hall v. Forest River, Inc., 536 F.3d 615 (7th Cir. 2008) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence for JMOL)
  • Thorne v. Member Select Ins. Co., 882 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. 2018) (construe evidence in favor of party who prevailed at trial)
  • Zelinski v. Columbia 300, Inc., 335 F.3d 633 (7th Cir. 2003) (Rule 50 renewal requirements and high bar to overturn jury verdict)
  • Andy Mohr Truck Ctr. v. Volvo Trucks N. Am., 869 F.3d 598 (7th Cir. 2017) (scope of grounds required in Rule 50(a) to preserve Rule 50(b) arguments)
  • Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005) (evidence of intent constructively relevant in secondary liability contexts)
  • Stevens v. CoreLogic, Inc., 899 F.3d 666 (9th Cir. 2018) (interpretation of DMCA §1202 and forward-looking scienter requirement)
  • Gorenstein Enters., Inc. v. Quality Care-USA, Inc., 874 F.2d 431 (7th Cir. 1989) (presumption in favor of prejudgment interest absent sound reason)
  • McRoberts Software, Inc. v. Media 100, Inc., 329 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 2003) (prejudgment interest principles reaffirmed)
  • eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (four-factor injunctive-relief standard)
  • Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994) (factors for awarding attorney's fees in copyright cases)
  • CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC, 136 S. Ct. 1642 (Sup. Ct. 2016) (definition of "prevailing party" as material alteration of legal relationship)
  • HyperQuest, Inc. v. N'Site Sols., Inc., 632 F.3d 377 (7th Cir. 2011) (defendants who win copyright suits receive strong presumption for fees)
Read the full case