Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I love how the CHS makes extensive use of case law to illustrate their points but I didn't see GWs team use it at all in my quick skim of the documents.

Well the old saying is, if the facts are on your side, pound on the facts, if the law is on your side pound on the law, if neither are on your side, pound on the table.

czakk wrote:
Well the old saying is, if the facts are on your side, pound on the facts, if the law is on your side pound on the law, if neither are on your side, pound on the table.

Then I feel real sorry for the table GW's team are using...

[Off Topic Posts deleted - please endeavor to stay On Topic - thanks!]

With regards to the shoulder pad. 2000AD have used the large shoulder armour style for years. You can see it in Judge Dredd comics long before Space Marines were around.

And check out this amour for similarity:


I'm not saying this image predates Space Marines, but it probably isn't based on Space Marines either. It's quite a natural progression from the Judge Armour.

The wikipedia page for Judge Dredd shows the cover of 2000AD number 2, which was printed in 1977. It depicts the judge with enormous shoulderpads. It should also be noted that GW did a line of Judge Dredd figures, so they were well aware of the style. GW also stole the SM bikes from Dredd.

All the extra goodies from GW's filing (310) are now up on recap:

http://archive.recapthelaw.org/ilnd/250791/ (scroll down)

Exhibit A is a bit of an interesting read

Tracking down another long lost employment contract? I'm pretty sure I was an employee at the relevant time


You could have some fun with the words 'belongs to' in those email. What legal rights is he talking about?

I just noticed this and thought that it was a weird coincidence.

This year Adepticon is being held on the same week that the Games Workshop v Chapterhouse Studios trial begins.

The Games Workshop v Chapterhouse Studios trial is scheduled to begin on Monday, April 15th. The Courthouse is on 219 South Dearborn Street in downtown Chicago. Judge Matthew F. Kennelly is presiding and his courtroom is 2103.

Adepticon 2013 is scheduled from Thursday, April 18th to Sunday, April 21st at the Westin Yorktown Lombard Center, about 30 minutes from the courthouse.

MINUTE entry before Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly: Telephone status hearing held on 12/12/12. Written discovery requests regarding new claims / products are to be served by 12/12/12. Responses to written discovery requests are to be served 25 days from the date of service as agreed. Documents responsive to written discovery requests are to be produced by no later then 1/11/13. Third party subpoenas to persons or entities now known in connection with new claims / products are to be served by 12/12/12. Plaintiff's amended claim chart is to be served by 1/11/13. Deadline for supplementation of prior discovery responses is 1/31/13. Rule 26(a)(2) disclosures regarding new claims / products are due by 2/1/13, and rebuttal Rule 26(a)(2) disclosures are due by 2/18/13. Expert discovery is to be completed by 2/25/13. Summary judgment motions regarding new claims / products are due by 3/4/13, responses are due 3/11/13, and replies are due 3/25/13. Final pretrial order, encompassing both previous and new claims / products, is due 3/29/13. Final pretrial conference is set for 4/10/13 at 3:30 PM. Motions in limine and responses are due per Judge Kennelly's pretrial procedures as posted on his web page. Trial on all claims / products remains set for 4/15/13 at 9:45 a.m. Telephone status hearing, to be initiated by counsel, is set for 2/5/13 at 8:45 AM. (mk) (Entered: 12/12/2012)

That's almost worth changing my plane ticket for; I'd love to watch some of this. But given how often last-minute changes come up in schedules, maybe not.

Is it actually likely for the trial to start on April 15th? That's much sooner than I'd expected! I'm surprised people aren't talking about it here more...

 RiTides wrote:
Is it actually likely for the trial to start on April 15th? That's much sooner than I'd expected! I'm surprised people aren't talking about it here more...

It is scheduled for Monday, April 15th 9:45 a.m. Judge Kennelly has already bumped the trial date twice, and it would be very unlikely for him to do it again. It depends on the Judge, honestly, but Kennelly is not likely to bump the date a third time.

Yep, I think he would like to see this case over and done with. If it were bumped again, it would probably throw the trial date back to midsummer based on federal scheduling that I am familiar with.

If I could, I might want to go to the first day to find out what the schedule was and then to see certain testimonies go forward. If anyone is in the area, and they end up going...be sure to take notes for updating the thread. Day to day activities in the courtroom dont get updated and it wouldnt be until after the decision is returned by the jury that we would hear anything else.

Luckily though, the case should be over by the end of April (barring any appeals that might happen).

I think it's safe to say that GW, if they lose any aspect of the case, will appeal this for as long as it is financially possible.

In the US system can someone appeal "just because" or do they need reasonable grounds for an appeal?

They needs reasonable grounds - they have to claim something like the judge made the wrong call, there was a procedure that wasn't followed correctly, things like that.

IANAL but that's how I understand it for civil cases.

Isn't there something bout the judge granting leave for the case to be appeal able? Might be mixing my jurisdictions up......

You are supposed to have some reason for an appeal...though it is broadly defined. I think the specific classes for an appeal are errors in law, fact or process.

If you loose a case, it is generally pretty easy to find a peg to hang your appeal on. I would need to double check the specific process for appeals in the Illinois District Court system, but often a judge (or panel of judges) will read the petition for an appeal and decide if he feels they have grounds for the appeal.

Depending on the grounds for the appeal, normally only certain aspects of a case are elligible to be adressed. For example, if GW were to win and be awarded something like a million dollars in damages, CHS could appeal and say they should only pay $10,000. The appeal would not address if GW or CHS were right or wrong, just whether or not the award was correct.

Larger issues (new facts for example) can cause a case to be fully reheard, and depending on the way the appeals court is feeling...they can try the case or they can kick it back to the previous court (and sometimes the same judge) to deal with it again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 poda_t wrote:
Isn't there something bout the judge granting leave for the case to be appeal able? Might be mixing my jurisdictions up......

Yah, that is two of the other broad types. Certain cases you can appeal by right (capital murder IIRC always has the right to appeal) while others you have to be granted the an appeal by leave (if I am remembering the term correctly). When the judge issues the final disposition, it is common for that clause to be put in place for civili cases, but then you still need some grounds rather than just because.

If GW lost and appealed the desicion, would the defence get a chance to file a reply as to why it shouldn't be granted? Similar to the motion to reconsider summary judgement made in pre-trial?

Generally, yes...they would also be generally allowed to file a counter too...again, going back to a hypothetical GW win...

If CHS were to appeal a large award to GW in damages, GW could counter and say that the award is actually too small and it should be 5 million instead.

Of course one also has to consider in whose hands the appeal would wind up. Additionally, filing an appeal would be an expensive prospect for either party, though in Chapterhouse's case counsel is working pro bono, although that does not necessarily mean counsel would be interested in pursuing an appeal pro bono.

I do not think GW would appeal a verdict unless it were both overwhelmingly in Chapterhouse's favor and destructive to GW. For example, let's say that the jury finds that all GW copyrights and trademarks are valid and owned by GW, but that CHS is not liable for any infringement, either because there was no infringement or because any infringement fell within the boundaries of fair use.

That would be an extremely solid win for CHS, but would GW appeal such a verdict? I would say probably not. Likelihood of success on appeal is low, notwithstanding the high cost to seek an appeal, and GW would have already walked away with its alleged IP intact. Plus, I would assume that in such a case defense counsel would be very much motivated to continue representing the defendant pro bono.

Now, if a jury finds that huge swaths of GW's alleged copyrights and trademarks are invalid or not owned by GW, GW might have more interest in seeking an appeal. But the plain fact is that the case is only so large and complicated because GW has made so many claims.

Would GW really be interested in appealing a jury verdict that said GW does not own a trademark in the word mark "Stormtrooper?" Would GW really be interested in appealing a verdict that it does not own a trademark on "High Elf," "Imperial Guard," or "Plasma?"

Would GW be interested in laying out several hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps facing another 2-3 years of costly litigation and the potential for a new jury trial to fight any verdict in this case?

That would assume a rational thought process...though I do not think you will see appeals barring something that would fully wipe out their IP claims.

Does anyone have a straightforward recap of what specific items GW were claiming infringed, which were redacted by GW, which were denied by the court, copyright office etc as well as the original works that GW claimed they infringed?

I'm sure at one point the exhibits were listed, but 126 pages is a lot to sift through.

No.

Really, no. One of the issues is that GW really didnt provide anything like that from the start and everything else would need to be built on that.

They provide a list of trademarks that they mention, but dont connect that list specifically to any infringing works. They have their claims charts, that pretty much list the entire CHS catalog...but the references that GW provides dont clarify copyright or trademark claims. They generally dont even list the actual first use for anything.

The previous summary judgement gives a run down on some of it (should have a summary in the front or back of the judgement). That misses 30 or so new claims though. If the judge reconsiders, it may well change that as well too though.

rigeld2 wrote:
there was a procedure that wasn't followed correctly, things like that.

IANAL but that's how I understand it for civil cases.

Only GW are the ones who have not followed procedure. I would say any appeal made by them should they lose would be thrown out based in their incompetence

Actually though, that in and of itself is grounds for an appeal. Our lawyer screwed up, give us a do over.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
No.

Really, no. One of the issues is that GW really didnt provide anything like that from the start and everything else would need to be built on that.

They provide a list of trademarks that they mention, but dont connect that list specifically to any infringing works. They have their claims charts, that pretty much list the entire CHS catalog...but the references that GW provides dont clarify copyright or trademark claims. They generally dont even list the actual first use for anything.

The previous summary judgement gives a run down on some of it (should have a summary in the front or back of the judgement). That misses 30 or so new claims though. If the judge reconsiders, it may well change that as well too though.

So GW claims infringement on both copyright and trademark, and they say which items they feel are offending, but they still have not said what items of their own they feel have been infringed upon? And the judge understands this?

And I imagine that fact will be presented to the jury...

How can GW honestly think they are in any sort of good position here?

2 years in and they still haven't even filed a proper complaint.

 Aerethan wrote:
Does anyone have a straightforward recap of what specific items GW were claiming infringed, which were redacted by GW, which were denied by the court, copyright office etc as well as the original works that GW claimed they infringed?

I'm sure at one point the exhibits were listed, but 126 pages is a lot to sift through.

I don't think even GW has a clear idea.

Their approach was not a scatter gun or even a flamethrower, so much as eating 60 years worth of SF books and spewing up rich streams of brown vomit on the court record, and saying it was all theirs.

 Aerethan wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
No.

Really, no. One of the issues is that GW really didnt provide anything like that from the start and everything else would need to be built on that.

They provide a list of trademarks that they mention, but dont connect that list specifically to any infringing works. They have their claims charts, that pretty much list the entire CHS catalog...but the references that GW provides dont clarify copyright or trademark claims. They generally dont even list the actual first use for anything.

The previous summary judgement gives a run down on some of it (should have a summary in the front or back of the judgement). That misses 30 or so new claims though. If the judge reconsiders, it may well change that as well too though.

So GW claims infringement on both copyright and trademark, and they say which items they feel are offending, but they still have not said what items of their own they feel have been infringed upon? And the judge understands this?

And I imagine that fact will be presented to the jury...

How can GW honestly think they are in any sort of good position here?

2 years in and they still haven't even filed a proper complaint.

Not exactly nothing...but they dont provide what the law generally asks. For example if they have a claim for Space Marine as a trademark, they should provide evidence of the first use in commerce for that term...something back in 1987 or so for them. Instead, the have a catalog page or image from their website for a Space Marine in 2004. The same goes to the copyright claims, they might site the flamer design, but they dont actually show the first which used that design.

This ended up being an issue in the rebutal for the last expert witness by GW. He cited sources from the 1990s based on a claim in the claim chart that was from 2003 or 2004. GWs rebutal was that...oh, our bad - did we say 2003, we actually meant this one from 1994...