Martineau v. Bungie, Inc.
2:24-cv-02387
| E.D. La. | May 2, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Matthew Kelsey Martineau alleges Bungie’s video game Destiny 2 infringes his copyrighted written works, originally published under the pen name “Caspar Cole.”
- Martineau claims his work—depicting a "Red Legion" invading Earth with unique technologies and plot devices—was publicly available online before Destiny 2’s development.
- Bungie allegedly accessed and copied substantial elements from Martineau’s work when creating Destiny 2, which was released in 2017.
- The lawsuit centers on similarities in characters, settings, and plotlines between Martineau’s writings and Destiny 2.
- Bungie moved to dismiss the amended complaint, attaching exhibits (YouTube videos, fan wiki pages, affidavit) for a side-by-side comparison at the motion to dismiss stage.
- The court was asked to rule on both Bungie’s motion to dismiss and Martineau’s motion to strike the attached exhibits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should consider third-party video/gameplay and wiki exhibits at 12(b)(6) stage | Such exhibits are incomplete, unreliable, outside pleadings | Proper to consider as Destiny 2 is referenced and central to claim | Court will not consider exhibits; they are not central/authenticated, and analysis is inappropriate at this stage |
| Whether side-by-side analysis of works is appropriate at motion to dismiss | Inappropriate; too complex at this stage, especially with different formats | Necessary for substantial similarity determination | Side-by-side analysis is premature; not suitable without full, authentic works and discovery |
| Sufficiency of copyright infringement allegations | Alleges ownership, access, factual copying, substantial similarity | Allegations are conclusory; insufficient factual pleadings on copying and substantial similarity | Plaintiff’s pleadings are sufficient under 12(b)(6); claim survives motion to dismiss |
| Conversion of motion to summary judgment | Premature without discovery; not all evidence present | Requested if court considers exhibits | Not converted; insufficient record/discovery, procedural fairness requires further development |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard for plausibility under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (standard for stating a claim under Rule 8)
- Peel & Co. v. Rug Mkt., 238 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2001) (test for substantial similarity in copyright cases)
- Positive Black Talk Inc. v. Cash Money Records, Inc., 394 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2004) (copyright infringement elements)
- Gen. Universal Sys. v. Lee, 379 F.3d 131 (5th Cir. 2004) (copyright claim evidentiary requirements)
- Nola Spice Designs, L.L.C. v. Haydel Enters., Inc., 783 F.3d 527 (5th Cir. 2015) (substantial similarity as factual question for factfinder)