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.

Da krimson barun wrote:
GW lost a million bucks?I already know their plan....Up the prices!

Not 'lost' - 'spent'.

Sunk costs with no return.

They spent more money trying to destroy a garage company than that company is likely to make in years.

What they lost was their common sense.

And the vast majority of the case.

And they want to get back up and try it again....

They have it in their heads that after market parts are illegal, which is just not true.

Or that they can win if they outspend their opponent (who has pro bono representation).

Somebody really needs to hit them over the head with a nice heavy book on IP - they just don't seem to get how it works....

It should have been their attorney - this was not a case that GW was likely to win. Settling would have been the wiser option.

But she either didn't tell them or they refused to listen.

If anything it is likely that the courts final result will be worse for GW.

But I lay odds that they will try it again with anyone else that tries to sell aftermarket parts.

The Auld Grump - short... choppy sentences... must stop... channeling Adam West....

@Actually I wouldn't be surprised if either their in-house attorney did advise them that legally they were on shaky ground, but was ordered to litigate anyway; God knows that happens often enough.
First of all, there's strategic reasons to consider: GW considers themselves to be the biggest dog in the park, so they attempt to create a general deterrent effect by bandying about the threat of litigation - with such a size disparity between them and potential defendants, the latter often choose not to exercise their rights in some regards to avoid the headache - and possible bankruptcy - that comes with such litigation. As long as GW isn't making evidently frivolous claims it's actually sort of permitted - not considering litigation a tort is, I believe, what SCOTUS called that (can you taste the cynicism there? yup, I'm European ).

Now obviously, this has *kind of* backfired for them here.
Sure, CHS will get their right to do all sorts of things, obviously permitted by law anyway, here. And I don't think GW will be able to go for a second bite at the apple even with new products - with CHS anyway (I mean, can you spell vexatious?), especially given how much CHS has proven itself to be willing to go the extra mile to litigate their rights by now (not having pro bono counsel would be a problem, but so much of any potential future claim would be settled here that I'm not sure GW could make anything stick anymore even when CHS is out of pro bono assistance).
However, there's plenty of other, generally very small, companies who still feel the threat of litigation from GW hanging over their head not one bit less than before - GW can still make small parties incur such costs as to at the very least make litigation a fundamentally not profitable option.
And that's what they're going for anyway - bullying the small guys into submission before they can grow to such a size as to be any kind of threat.

The problem is that as long as their claim in any particular case isn't frivolous on it's face, they get to litigate it. Now back here in Europe that can be a bit cheaper in cases such as this - quite a bit, at times -, but still, even then, for the kind of company making a few thousand quid per year in profit that is just not going to make much of a difference, is it?
Any kind of litigation involving IP rights such as this is going to involve substantial amounts of attorney's fees to make your case - which GW can spend.
A very small company however, even in our so-called loser pays systems (and even that's a relative term in pretty much any EU system), would still have to pay, up front, for any costs incurred before litigation is resolved. Are they going to front thousands of pounds (at least) for that? Hardly, I can tell you that. Next up: we actually do not shift anywhere near the full amount of costs incurred by prevailing party over to the paying "loser" in our loser pays rule; there's a very substantial so-called recovery gap which is still coming out of even a prevailing defendant's pocket. So whether they were right or not (and they weren't), and while GW certainly got egg on it's face here (and goody too), and while this is certainly a victory to some extent for smaller manufacturers pretty much everywhere, GW will still, to some extent, get to continue their bullying practices.

Showing they were perfectly willing to spend, as weeble says over a million dollars, or as I believe either czakk or sean estimated, quite a bit more than that, on litigation they **must** have known was not exactly going to be all that fruitful and still see it through to the end, might actually have more of a deterrent effect than settling without this precedent might have.

I know I would be reluctant to put a business with which I were providing for maintenance for me and/or loved ones with, in that particular moloch's path still (not so much here in NL; I'm pretty sure they'd get slapped to hell and back with a few thousand € in expenses in the end for defendant at most, but the UK I'm not so certain about for example, from what I've seen).
Now that's me, and I'm not exactly as afraid of litigation as the average person is (law school does that to ya). Even if in the end, it'd probably be okay, how do you think most people who just want to earn a few bucks on the side getting involved in providing a service for a hobby they love, feel about such a headache?
That's their goal, right there, attained quite spectacularly: slapping down "the little guy" who just wants to do some business without getting up in arms in potentially nasty litigation.


...So while I find their actions deplorable, and wished there was a good way to just keep attorneys from participating in such litigation via ethical rules (and believe me, that gets complicated: you don't want to keep parties from litigating contentious - but potentially meritorious - claims either!) or somesuch, I'd say they might not have gotten off as badly as one might, on first glance, think.

Sure, it's a bloody nose purely legally speaking, but strategically they might well have gotten (most of) what they were looking for out of this.
...Much as it pains me to say.

I have to disagree with you there Bolognesus.

While I do agree with your sentiment, that profitable, but small, businesses fall into an unfortunate black hole when it comes to bullying litigation, the GW v CHS case will have a more significant impact than you think.

Small businesses classically have trouble finding pro-bono representation, because they have money, just not much of it. The GW v CHS case is a bit unprecedented in that a small business was able to secure tons of pro-bono representation, even with some high five digit year over year revenue. But that's just it though. Chapterhouse was able to get representation. The case serves as an example in the legal industry, and brings such issues into sharper focus. The case got print in Law 360, and has been mentioned in other mainstream IP law contexts. The case is being discussed, and if it goes up on appeal, well then it will be precedent in the 7th circuit, which makes it rather important when it comes to IP law in the US. A couple of years from now, we may be referring to the Games Workshop decision.

Also, Games Workshop does not have the resources to engage in this kind of litigation repetitively. Remember that Gill Stevenson left GW in August, so it is reasonable to assume that even internally, Games Workshop is not looking at the case as a rosy mark on the legal department's record.

If GW continues in its behavior, the Chapterhouse case makes it far easier for Games Workshop to get stuck into another, potentially worse situation. It is easier for defendants to find counsel, the Chapterhouse case provides a diagram for a successful defense, plenty of testimony is on the record, willing experts have already been located, reports are accessible. This makes it likely for discovery in any subsequent case to be easier, cheaper, and more effective. This makes it easier to get someone to work on it. The press on the case makes another one far more likely to get more press, which again makes it easier to secure representation. Future cases makes it far easier to establish a pattern of behavior and/or a company policy, which increases the risk of vexatious litigation or some sort of litigation tort.

GW had a way out, passed on it, and got slammed. GW is facing the risk of passing up another opportunity to get out and getting slammed even harder a second time. The board tends to start taking notice of things like that, same with investors.

And don't forget the massive amount of negative publicity. This case has harmed Games Workshop is ways it is impossible to put a dollar figure on, but that does not make Games Workshop any less wounded. Further litigation like this will draw more fire from fans and customers, not less. Look at the Beasts of War situation.

Imagine if Chapterhouse had just up and died. Imagine where we would be today. The case is already having a massive impact. GW's IP enforcement was dialing up hard core once Gill Stevenson was hired. For the past three years...other than Chapterhouse it has been pretty quiet. GW does not have the resources to fight on multiple fronts, and Chapterhouse has stood like Minas Tirith, getting beat to Hell by the forces of the dark lord, but keeping everyone else that much safer. And if the case goes on appeal, there will be another year of this, maybe more.

And if GW loses an appeal hard...Imagine what would happen if GW was found to have not provided evidence of protected expression at the appellate court. Not only would that be a landmark piece of precedent in the 7th circuit, it would toss all of GW's successful findings of copyright infringement. If you bring 100+ claims for copyright infringement and are found to have, at trial, produced evidence insufficient to support your claim...what chances do you think a motion for fees from the defendant would have? How much have the defendant's firms spent on the case, do you think?

This is all hypothetical, and based on the post trial motions, but this case has already had a massive effect on the miniatures industry, and it has the potential to have far, far more serious consequences for Games Workshop. I'd say GW is going into this with eyes wide open, but they just fired their senior corporate counsel, so I suppose they're flying blind.

Hmm, lot's of good points there, for sure.
A few points though:
- Negative publicity? Well, if this was mainstream enough to attract public attention in a more 'general' sphere, perhaps. As it is however, the publicity it has, outside of the legal profession that is, attracted, is mostly contained within 'hardcore' hobbyist forums etc. You've seen news&rumours here - the most shamefully negative wargaming forum in human history - 90% of the loudest voices will buy anyway their friends hearing the negativity, will see them buy stuff anyway. I'm not convinced publicity will be a noticeable factor on GW sales here. Reasonable minds can disagree, though - and perhaps your superior experience in such matters is something I should defer to a bit more

- future potential litigation: well, I agree a future case is far, far easier to defend. Even without negative precedent for them (which I agree at this point, they're quite likely to incur).
My issue is not with actual litigation, though. Once someone really, really stands up to them and is prepared to suffer for it for some time, as happened here, they will bite the dust, again. Nuisance factor (translation all right there?) however, combined with averse sentiment towards any kind of litigation, especially one who's been seen to make such a stand - however foolishly - will dissuade many potential business from getting into this before even coming close to legal counsel.
Remember, it is very, very easy for you and me to forget what the term 'lawsuit' does to the average member of the public. Maybe less in the US; I'll readily admit that's not something I can gauge as well as the sentiment down here and maybe cultural differences amount to more than I give them credit for - again, your experience here is probably quite relevant.
EU based companies however, I can doubledogcertainly assure you this sentiment will have an important effect.

-How much is such a defense, however much easier it has been made by this case (diagram for successful defense etc), still going to cost? "Meh, I'm sure I'll find pro bono counsel" is not a sentiment I'd think is all that prevalent, nor is it exactly something I'd advise anyone, ever, in whatever sort of situation to take up. I'm guessing it's still going to be a lowball to put it in the five figure range?

-Establishing vexatious behaviour as company policy.
Wow. If you manage that, the entire industry is golden for the next few decades. From what I've seen though, good luck doing that. Are you really sure that, as long as they keep the truly outrageous claims down a tad next time around, such a pattern could ever be established?
I'll readily admit that what few LLM level comparative civil procedure I've taken hardly covers this so by all means smack me down here () but isn't an American court in particular going to be extremely unlikely to term a vigorous pursuit of litigation in not on-their-face-frivolous IP claims vexatious, what with the whole litigation-is-not-a-tort and access-to-justice, to defend any (potential) right, philosophy over yonder?
I mean, getting individual claims thrown out as vexatious is one thing, but establishing IP litigation as a vexatious pattern seems more than a bit of a stretch (again, however much I would **like** it not to be, so relieve me of a little bit of my cynical nature here by all means ).

-Future litigation causing publicity issues: again, do you *really* think this is going to actually bite them in the one place (sales) they ever give a toss about?

Sure, some people, who might otherwise not have, might take on other systems because of this. Will GW feel that's worth it compared to how many other companies they've probably kept from springing up? I'd say so. (not that I agree it's a viable policy, but it's one they're at least somewhat entitled to pursue if their shareholders feel like letting them...)


Lastly, let me emphasise I don't disagree this is very good news for everyone already doing this, who's already taking a risk there somewhat; those are insufficiently risk-averse (or perceive the risk more correctly, if I'd assume less of my and more of your points to be entirely correct ) to take to that kind of threat; but GW never had a chance against those, and I'm guessing, internally, they damn well know it (noone can claim IP rights of any kind to a roman numeral, or a skull on a geometric shape, and honestly feel they're in the right with even the slightest inklink of legal education).
Their attempted suppression of more risk-averse producers springing up will, with sentiments towards litigation being what they are in Europe, not take much of a hit in my opinion.
If you're saying it makes a big difference in the US, I'm guessing that's a big win at least (and with US litigation and potential US precedent, probably the more germane point to argue anyway, come to think of it). I just don't see it doing a damn thing back here.

But if the lawsuits GW threatens are only ever limited to 'nuisance' lawsuits, then CHS will have cut off GW's balls. Period.

Chapterhouse went toe to toe with GW because the survival of the business was at stake. If GW attempts to force another company out of business again...don't you think that person or those people would try to mount a defense? And if they do, they are more likely to find pro-bono counsel than they were before the Chapterhouse case, more likely to be successful, and more likely to cause greater harm to Games Workshop. GW jacked up its risk in any future litigation, and if GW get's slammed at the appellate level, the company could very well have a harder time making a case that it believes certain types of claims have merit.

GW was trying to outlaw the accessories industry, and if you're suggesting that going forward GW will only have the power to make limited, annoying requests to modify the odd product, then that is a sea change, my friend.

Plus, GW will probably never sue someone in the UK. Professor Bently's report is hanging out there and GW does not want to see 20 years of products suddenly open to being copied wholesale.

Some categories of accessories will evidently be safe from anything but 'nuisance' lawsuits but that's by no means all of them - there's arguably always going to be a grey area they can litigate time and time again without establishing a meaningfully vexatious pattern and while that has shifted a bit, there's going to be enough stuff which could be argued in a less unlikely manner to be protected, they can still threaten other companies out of making.

Again, I'm not arguing that at least legally, there isn't a substantial improvement here but the threat, in a broad sense, is not limited to nuisance suits.
How broad are you guessing this precedent will be to put it there? Really, I'd love a clear-cut "anything that's not a complete, direct, 1:1 reproduction is fair game" precedent but we both know this isn't going to go anywhere near that.

Sure, makers of shoulder pads with custom imagery are going to be safe as soon as that precedent hits, I agree on that point.
But overly similar weaponry (as in, more similar than just similar, simulated, function), or grey areas of imagery, things like that; it's still going to feel 'scary'. (and feth, I *know* folks staying away from this business because of that scare factor exactly...)

As to businesses folding or fighting: well, first of all again I'm arguing deterrence to starting companies more than modifying behaviour of existing companies, but even those might be inclined to shirk away from certain fields to avoid trouble.

Honestly though, I really think we're hitting a cultural difference at this point; I can't imagine this making all that much of a change given averseness to litigation here and you can't imagine it not doing so; I'm sure this would at least confirm the *perception* of lesser averseness to litigation on the part of US business owners generally imprinted as fact on us here, so I'm ascribing it to that

...And again, I was never arguing it wasn't some victory, just that GW perceives this to be the strategy which still has their "least bad" outcome attached.

As a measure of how successfull GW thought the (prelimiary) outcome of this lawsuit was:
The responsible GW lawyer was reportedly close to tears after the jury spoke and, on her own or by force, left GW during the current negotiations, that is before the lawsuit is at its official end.

I just don't see much evidence of what you're talking about Bolognesus.

Accessory companies have exploded in number and expanded since Games Workshop sued Chapterhouse Studios. Where are these startup companies deciding not to open shop? Because from where I am sitting I see a wide field of small, independent companies producing more and more miniatures and accessories that work well with Games Workshop's products. Hell, there's even been an expansion in the number of companies offering shoulder pads since Games Workshop filed its lawsuit.

Games Workshop filed two lawsuits in 2010 and sent several high profile, publicized C&D letters. Since then, I would argue that the pace has objectively slowed.

The lawsuit is having the effects you say it probably isn't having right now as we speak.

Beyond that, we're talking in hypotheticals, and when I talk about litigation torts, I'm talking about increased risk which is objectively true. The degree of the increase and whether that increased risk is a deterrent is another matter, but it is a fact that it is there. Who knows what Games Workshop will do, but if the company files another lawsuit like the one against Chapterhouse, with a complaint that reads like the one it filed against Chapterhouse, I would put money on a us seeing a law firm jump in to defend the case pro-bono.

And as for news related to the suit, this is where the news matters, among GW's customers and potential customers, plenty of whom have stated an intention to stop buying GW products because of the Chapterhouse lawsuit as well as other of the company's practices.

Games Workshop has not filed another lawsuit like the one against Chapterhouse Studios. That is a fact. Games Workshop's senior inhouse counsel is no longer with the company as of two months after the jury verdict in the Chapterhouse trial. That is a fact. Chapterhouse Studios remains in business and raised more money in a Kickstarter Campaign a month after the verdict than Games Workshop was awarded by the jury. That is a fact. There are more accessory companies in business now than in December 2011, and the companies extant in December 2011 have substantially increased product lines. That is a fact. The court does not believe settlement between Games Workshop and Chapterhouse is likely, and Chapterhouse has publicly stated an intention to appeal the case. That is a fact.

How is it a fact that there are more companies existant since the CHS case? Sounds like opinion to me.

Also another fact that there have been less litigations since CHS-how many was there before? The recent overtures from Wayland/BoW suggests there is still plenty of legal beagles on the payroll.

Situation normal I would suggest, a new arse in the chair will not make much difference. If as some suggest Groupthink is n action then the new legal head will ben keen to impress/tow the line.

 notprop wrote:
How is it a fact that there are more companies existant since the CHS case? Sounds like opinion to me.

Weeble might be flying by the seat of his pants here, but it is a verifiable item, certainly not an opinion. Whether he has checked, I can't say, but I'm inclined to agree.

Also another fact that there have been less litigations since CHS-how many was there before? The recent overtures from Wayland/BoW suggests there is still plenty of legal beagles on the payroll.

There is a world of difference between making threats and actually bringing a suit, the mechanism of "it's not worth fighting it" is still effective in some cases for now, but the one you cite was actually a case (apparently) of manipulating trade terms because they couldn't pursue legal recourse.

Situation normal I would suggest, a new arse in the chair will not make much difference. If as some suggest Groupthink is n action then the new legal head will ben keen to impress/tow the line.

Can't argue with that!

If anything, the rise of accessories companies is lagging way behind what growth of the industry (what was it? 15% recently?) and more funding options would suggest.

And if anything, most of them manage to stay the hell away from anything as (to GW's mind) contentious as CHS did; look at the wide berth Anvil and zinge for example are giving anything like that.

The only 'rise' in such companies I really see is companies located in countries where GW hasn't got a fethtonne of chance going after much of anything, anyway. PW, legendarion, maxmini etc are all safely tucked away where GW probably won't get at them (seemingly, Polish courts aren't a friendly place, IPwise, for foreign litigants).

And again: I'm __not__ arguing this is not a win.
All I'm arguing is that they'll still see enough options open to keep at this.

Sure they're licking their wounds now; they're going to re-strategize before throwing out more C&D's first.
What I was arguing, more or less, however is that that 2009/2010 wave of C&D's has largely done it's job.

Again, you're entirely right that someone who cares enough to persevere through that conflict now has a much better outlook on things.
You're also right this is factually a win, whichever way you look at it.
We don't disagree there - right from the start.

Yes, I'm arguing hypotheticals (though I might add I know some concrete examples of my hypotheticals personally, but never mind that); I can however assure you that that threat is enough to dissuade potential producers from going into this business who would have if GW would have had a friendly attitude to third-party components in place. That's not a concrete example, but it really, really is how perception of even litigation such as this lies around here.
Europeans, (potential) business owners as well, have a vastly different attitude to litigation compared to US business owners (seemingly), generally speaking.
That's pretty much the only point where we substially disagree.
...Okay, I'd argue 95% of folks posting they're giving up on GW games make a subsequent GW product purchase within a month from said post - at least - from what I've seen around, but that's a marginal discussion anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The whole Wayland/BOW thing is totally different; that's a contractual matter vs. IP litigation. Totally different kettle of fish.

 azreal13 wrote:

 notprop wrote:
How is it a fact that there are more companies existant since the CHS case? Sounds like opinion to me.

Weeble might be flying by the seat of his pants here, but it is a verifiable item, certainly not an opinion. Whether he has checked, I can't say, but I'm inclined to agree.

By all means verify that item then. Even on the computerwebz 1 opinion + 1 opinion doesn't = fact

Also another fact that there have been less litigations since CHS-how many was there before? The recent overtures from Wayland/BoW suggests there is still plenty of legal beagles on the payroll.

There is a world of difference between making threats and actually bringing a suit, the mechanism of "it's not worth fighting it" is still effective in some cases for now, but the one you cite was actually a case (apparently) of manipulating trade terms because they couldn't pursue legal recourse.

Different route same objective, both tend to require a legal department to run; which was the point.

Situation normal I would suggest, a new arse in the chair will not make much difference. If as some suggest Groupthink is n action then the new legal head will ben keen to impress/tow the line.

Can't argue with that!

If you think I care enough to count the number of third party manufacturers pre and post CHS suit, I'm afraid you're mixing me up with somebody entirely more motivated!!!

But it is a verifiable fact, go on, I dare you to try!

I doubt Weeble was trying to argue that there wasn't a legal dept anymore, just that they'd been less visible recently, which again "feels" correct, without caring enough to check.

Caught red handed. I was indeed flying by the seat of my pants on the number of accessory companies. It is not something I have counted (I'm with azrael on that), but I would happily bet good money on it being correct. At the very least, it certainly seems to be true, and I can give you one fact I did take the time to actually count:

The number of companies selling shoulder pad bits compatible with Games Workshop space marine products has increased post filing of the GW v CHS suit.

And that, I think, alone allows one to infer the expansion of the accessory companies as arguably that is the area GW was initially most concerned about.

And be careful with this accessory companies expanding less than the market thing. First, that figure has been argued to death and back and is based in US figures. As you pointed out, most of the accessory companies are not based in the US. Now, I happen to agree with the figure, but you should note that I am referring to companies making accessories for GW products, and we know that GW is not growing at all.

So frankly it should be amazing, in the context of your own argument, that there is any growth in companies making accessories for GW products.

The significant rise in prominence of crowd-funding over the course of the case might also lead to an expectation that weeble's statement is true.

weeble1000 wrote:
Caught red handed. I was indeed flying by the seat of my pants on the number of accessory companies. It is not something I have counted (I'm with azrael on that), but I would happily bet good money on it being correct. At the very least, it certainly seems to be true, and I can give you one fact I did take the time to actually count:

I don't know if this is a good example of cause and effect. I'm also seeing a lot of 3rd party bits coming onto the market but it seems like most of them are based out of Poland or somewhere else in Europe like Kromlech, Puppets War and Scibor. Aside from Chapterhouse, I'm not seeing much coming from America, the UK, or western Europe. Terrain, wood buildings, and battle tables don't really qualify as after-market bits even though it seems we are seeing a lot more of those.

 Baragash wrote:
The significant rise in prominence of crowd-funding over the course of the case might also lead to an expectation that weeble's statement is true.

Except that those crowd-funding projects are mostly for new model ranges or even games that are not related to GW. Basically they are brand new competition for hobby dollars like Privateer Press or Wyrd. Whether they will last or not has yet to be determined. CH made after-market add-on parts specifically designed to work with GW's figures. I've not seen much crowd-funding designed to do this.

We're wandering a bit afield, folks. Given that we may actually start seeing case updates in the near future, it's time to ease back on the hypotheticals & speculation again.

 Breotan wrote:
Aside from Chapterhouse, I'm not seeing much coming from America, the UK, or western Europe. Terrain, wood buildings, and battle tables don't really qualify as after-market bits even though it seems we are seeing a lot more of those

I keep pushing Sean to release his components, he just finished some more a couple weeks ago:

http://mechanicalhorizon.deviantart.com/gallery

He's based in Seattle right now, so there's at least one other person in the USA who's trying to get a complimentary range started. He needs to get off his butt and get going, IMHO he could do very well with his background.

I think he just needs to get a more "complete" models sculpted like his own Power Armor troops or maybe something that could pass for Imperial Guard. Possibly even some vehicles.

By the way, I just realized that I misread the minute entry.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly: Rule 16(b) status hearing held on 10/10/2013 with attorneys for both sides. Supplement to joint status report regarding injunction is to be filed by 10/22/2013. Briefs opposing post trial motions and bills of costs are due by 10/24/2013; replies are due by 11/7/2013. Status hearing set for 11/7/2013 at 09:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (pjg, ) (Entered: 10/10/2013)

So Judge Kennelly scheduled opposition briefs to the renewed JMOL motions in addition to briefs opposing the motions for costs.

So we'll see those briefs soon. Fun.

czakk wrote:
So we'll see those briefs soon. Fun.

Indeed. They should be up by late Thursday Chicago time, unless counsel decides to file early, which is unlikely.

It will be interesting to see where Games Workshop goes with its opposition to Chapterhouse's rule 50 motion. I don't expect Chapterhouse's rule 50 opposition brief to be very surprising, but you never know. Games Workshop's motion was...weird...to say the least, and Chapterhouse's was provocative, at least to my eyes. The reply briefs will be especially interesting.

It may be a good idea to do up a brief summary of the parties rule 50 motions, or repost from somewhere earlier in the thread if they were summarized earlier. The opposition briefs could be a bit obtuse if folks don't remember what the parties were arguing in the first place. This case is huge, and most briefs thus far have had something like a 12-15 page limit. The arguments may be a little succinct, and therefore a bit more opaque to the casual reader.

HOLY CRAP!

10/15/2013 441 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752-8829389. (Mooney, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/15/2013)
10/19/2013 442 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752-8845548. (Goldman, Kevin) (Entered: 10/19/2013)
10/19/2013 443 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752-8845563. (Tompros, Louis) (Entered: 10/19/2013)

Chapterhouse Studios is being represented by WilmerHale! Elizabeth Mooney is listed under defense counsel, so WilmerHale is definitely in for Chapterhouse Studios.

This is crazy, and a HUGE development. This means that now Chapterhouse Studios is being represented by 3 major, top-rated US law firms. A new firm at this point, given the supposed break down in settlement negotiations, probably also means that Chapterhouse is planning on an appeal, with at least WilmerHale working on it, if not all three firms.

Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale, and Dorr (WilmerHale) is a serious US law firm with a substantial track record in IP litigation. If any of you folks remember, Apple's counsel in the Apple v Samsung case was Morrison Foerster and WilmerHale.

Mr. Tompros's practice focuses on intellectual property matters at the trial and appellate levels. He has represented clients in patent disputes involving a variety of technologies, including smartphones, semiconductors, networking, alternative energy, pharmaceuticals, blood and bone marrow treatments, power converters, digital imaging, video compression, mobile multimedia, hard drive testing and plastic storage devices. He has also represented companies in design patent, trademark, trade dress, unfair competition, trade secret, contract, antitrust and products liability matters. His practice has encompassed all facets of litigation, including discovery, settlement, alternative dispute resolution, trials, injunction proceedings and appeals. His trial experience includes bench and jury trials in federal and state courts, and before administrative agencies including the International Trade Commission, and his appellate experience includes argument before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Pro bono representation is also an important part of Mr. Tompros's practice. Through the Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts, he represented an artist whose artwork had been damaged on loan to a museum. He has also represented local Boston non-profit organizations, including the Charlestown Nursery School. He has represented terminated employees in unemployment insurance claims and appeals, and public housing tenants facing eviction. Mr. Tompros also represented a group of gay and lesbian service members challenging the constitutionality of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, in association with the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

Wow, put that in your pipe GW! It's a trifecta!

At this point, I didn't think things could get worse for GW.

I wonder how Chapterhouse managed to snag them up?

I guess this is an indication of just how confident CH view the appeals process and their stance within.

I assume all this high-powered legal work is still being carried out pro-bono?

Presumably it reflects the confidence of the new law firms in their ability to win a lot of the appeals.

 Sasori wrote:
At this point, I didn't think things could get worse for GW.

I wonder how Chapterhouse managed to snag them up?

Their other lawyers probably reached out to their peers.

 filbert wrote:
I guess this is an indication of just how confident CH view the appeals process and their stance within.

I assume all this high-powered legal work is still being carried out pro-bono?

Chapterhouse could not afford to pay anyone from WilmerHale, so I think it is perfectly safe to assume the work is being done pro-bono. I mean, we know what Chapterhouse's revenue is over a 4 year period, and have testimony from Nick VIllacci about the profit margins. So...no, Chapterhouse could not pay an attorney that would likely charge upwards of $400-500+ per hour.

And this should therefore be taken not as Chapterhouse's confidence in the appeal process, but rather WilmerHale's confidence in the appellate issues. Firms like WilmerHale do not take a losing case pro-bono, and it goes without saying that in order to get approval through the firm's pro-bono committee, the merits of the case would have been evaluated.

Wow, is this the right firm?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmer_Cutler_Pickering_Hale_and_Dorr


If so, that corporate resume is....impressive to say the least. At this point, given the amount of money Games Workshop has already sank into this and given the amount of money they are going to spend on an appeal--do we foresee a settlement? Or would CH even consider that at this point (Or is that even permissible--a settlement on appeal)? As a side note, if I understand that firm to the one linked---Robert Duvall played one of their attorneys in the movie A Civil Action? Haha--wow.

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
Wow, is this the right firm?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmer_Cutler_Pickering_Hale_and_Dorr


If so, that corporate resume is....impressive to say the least. At this point, given the amount of money Games Workshop has already sank into this and given the amount of money they are going to spend on an appeal--do we foresee a settlement? Or would CH even consider that at this point (Or is that even permissible--a settlement on appeal)? As a side note, if I understand that firm to the one linked---Robert Duvall played one of their attorneys in the movie A Civil Action? Haha--wow.

Edit: Read the wiki entry. I was wrong about who Robert Duvall played. But yes, that is the firm.

Parties can always settle out. They just go to the Court and say, "Hey, we've worked it out, so y'all can stop now."

 Sasori wrote:
At this point, I didn't think things could get worse for GW.

They could always decide to double down and sue CHS again for products they've released since they originally filled. That would be a M.Knight worthy twist.