czakk wrote:
Notice this name appear on the docket - http://winston.com/en/who-we-are/attorneys/johannes-tyler-g.html

Not sure if this has been commented on yet, in a bit of a rush, but he's part of the appellate practice group.

 jonolikespie wrote:

czakk wrote:
Notice this name appear on the docket - http://winston.com/en/who-we-are/attorneys/johannes-tyler-g.html

Not sure if this has been commented on yet, in a bit of a rush, but he's part of the appellate practice group.

what's an appellate practice group?

czakk wrote:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.445.0.pdf

STATUS Report Supplemental Joint Status Report regarding Entry of Injunction by Chapterhouse Studios LLC, Games Workshop Limited (Keener, Jason) (Entered: 10/22/2013)

czakk wrote:
Notice this name appear on the docket - http://winston.com/en/who-we-are/attorneys/johannes-tyler-g.html

Not sure if this has been commented on yet, in a bit of a rush, but he's part of the appellate practice group.

 Janthkin wrote:

czakk wrote:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.445.0.pdf

STATUS Report Supplemental Joint Status Report regarding Entry of Injunction by Chapterhouse Studios LLC, Games Workshop Limited (Keener, Jason) (Entered: 10/22/2013)

GW: We are entitled to an injunction against all products that include an icon that was on the jury verdict form.
CH: GW is entitled to an injunction only to the extent of exactly what the verdict form presented, which is the combination of an icon and descriptive language.

Naturally enough, considering who's involved, the whole motion is a RAI/RAW argument. And the jury isn't available to FAQ it.

Games Workshop (“GW”) brought this case to put Chapterhouse out of business. GW failed with the jury, which correctly rejected most of GW’s copyright and trademark claims. Now GW asks this Court to substitute its judgment for the jury’s, based on overgeneralizations and mischaracterizations of the law and the record.

There is no basis to overturn any of the challenged aspects of the jury’s verdict. First, there was ample evidence for the jury to find that GW failed to prove both that its products were original and that Chapterhouse copied them. Second, GW does not identify any proper grounds for striking the testimony of Chapterhouse’s experts related to the issue of scenes a faire, but regardless, that evidence is not necessary to support the jury’s verdict. Finally, GW fails to identify any evidence to undermine the jury’s copyright fair use and trademark fair use judgments—in most cases, GW fails to even address the specific products or marks at issue, let alone identify any evidence indicating that Chapterhouse’s use was not fair.

GW’s motion for judgment as a matter of law should be denied.

Q. Are there any references you took inspiration from in
8 designing your models?
9 A. For which group, for the Fantasy or --
10 Q. For the Warhammer 40K.
11 A. For Warhammer 40K, not really, no. Warhammer 40K, again it
12 was because guys had been doing historical stuff who then
13 started doing fantasy stuff, who were then asked to do science
14 fiction stuff. Really, it was like a kind of logical extension
15 of all the things that we knew and understood about the logic of
16 military equipment and how it would go together, you know. That
17 is what we carried forward.
18 There would be extra information. You like -- we would
19 all like to read comics, we would all like to read books, we
20 would all like to watch movies, and we might bring some small
21 part of that into it, you know, more to do with the feel, you
22 know, because we knew that our customers were out there reading
23 the same books, reading the same comics, and watching the same
24 films. So, we wanted to make sure that people understood what
25 the model was about.

Q. Correct me if I'm wrong, did you say that you took an
2 overall feel from the references --
3 A. Yeah. Sometimes, yes, but not -- we didn't lift an entire
4 look from a movie or a book or anything. We would glean, as we
5 had done with the historical stuff, we would say, "That's a nice
6 touch, I like that. The way that descriptor of that -- the way
7 that helmet works in that comic, the way that glove looks or
8 that particular gun, that's got a nice mechanic to it."
9 And you would visually take that in, if you like. You
10 wouldn't say, "I'm going to photocopy that and file it." It
11 didn't work like that. It was just a case of you having an
12 ambient appreciation of what was going on outside.
13 Q. You referred to themes and overall flavors.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Would you say that Warhammer 40K falls into the realm of
16 science fiction?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Did you mention that you took inspiration from certain
19 movies, books, and comics that sculptors in the field generally
20 were aware of in the 1980s?
21 A. I can give you names of movies that were around at the time,
22 but they would only be examples of the general field of like,
23 say, science fiction movies. There were not that many science
24 fiction movies, so we tended to watch them all, you know, so you
25 would have watched things, like you would have watched Star

7 THE COURT: The first question is where in Tolkien --
8 what's the right pronunciation of that, anyway?
9 MR. KEENER: Tolkien.

Games Workshop (“GW”) brought this action to shut down—or, at a minimum, radically alter—the business of Chapterhouse, claiming in a letter to Chapterhouse that “all of the 106 products currently marketed on your website infringe in some way our client’s intellectual property rights.” Ex. A at 5. (DX-175.) See also Ex. B at 1 (requesting that Chapterhouse “cease all such sales”) (DX-639). But GW failed—Chapterhouse can still sell many of those products. And factoring in summary judgment, trial, and dropped claims, Chapterhouse won over two-thirds of GW’s copyright and trademark claims. GW was only successful in obtaining a small fraction of the damages it initially sought. Indeed, GW would not have invested in this case as heavily as it did simply to slap Chapterhouse on the wrist. Accordingly, it is Chapterhouse, not GW, that is the prevailing party. GW focuses only on the trial, but this is too narrow a view under the text of Rule 54 and the case law surrounding it.

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
It feels to me the CHS language is much more assertive than it was previously. Not in a spiteful, unprofessional manner--but for lack of a word--more aggressive. Is this typical in post-trial proceedings? Or just typical when attorney fees are in the equation?

czakk wrote:

They start off pretty punchy.

xruslanx wrote:

czakk wrote:

They start off pretty punchy.

As a complete novice in this area, is that sort of language usual in these documents? GW's seemed pretty stale and legal, CHS's has more casual phrases like "slap on the wrist" and uses italics for effect.

 prplehippo wrote:


It's the "prevailing party" wording that makes it look like GW is implying they "won" and CHS "lost".

Or did they actually come out on top in this? Or is this just GW posturing?

 paulson games wrote:
What I wouldn't give to hear the judge say "well this is certainly a muddy situation that nobody here agrees on, we'll just have to dice off".

 prplehippo wrote:
I can't help but get the feeling that GW is desperately trying to pretend they didn't step in a large, steaming pile of dog poo and tracked it across the carpet.

Games Workshop (“GW”) brought this action to shut down—or, at a minimum, radically alter—the business of Chapterhouse, claiming in a letter to Chapterhouse that “all of the 106 products currently marketed on your website infringe in some way our client’s intellectual property rights... But GW failed—Chapterhouse can still sell many of those products. And factoring in summary judgment, trial, and dropped claims, Chapterhouse won over two-thirds of GW’s copyright and trademark claims. GW was only successful in obtaining a small fraction of the damages it initially sought. Indeed, GW would not have invested in this case as heavily as it did simply to slap Chapterhouse on the wrist.

As GW’s cited case acknowledges, “it may be proper for the trial court to award only low costs or no costs at all.” Shum v. Intel Corp., 629 F.3d 1360, 1367 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Further, courts enjoy the same discretion under Rule 26. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(E) (permitting courts to deny costs if “manifest injustice would result”).
This Court should use its discretion to deny all costs to GW, as GW’s request would inflict a burden on Chapterhouse that far exceeds the outcome of the trial. A “court may decline to award costs when an award of costs would be inequitable under all the circumstances in the case.” Plair v. E.J. Brach & Sons, Inc., No. 94 C 244, 1995 WL 387789, at *1 (N.D. Ill. June 28, 1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In Plair, the court denied costs where the losing party was indigent and represented pro bono, even though the losing party was the plaintiff. Here, Chapterhouse is the defendant—it did not choose to litigate this case. And Chapterhouse is a small company; it was represented in this case pro bono. See Ex. F (Declaration of Bryce A. Cooper). In asking the jury for $25,000 in damages (all GW wanted, it now claims), GW claimed in its closing argument that it was “not looking to be punitive.” (Ex. E, Tr. 1765:20.) But it now seeks a cost award that is more than ten times greater than the damage award it requested. Such an award would inflict tremendous financial burden on Chapterhouse. It should be denied.

2. Chapterhouse was represented pro bono by Winston & Strawn LLP.
3. Chapterhouse was represented pro bono by Marshall Gerstein & Borun.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
$25,000 sounds like a nice round figure that a jury might pick out of the air because they don't want to award nothing but they don't want to award anything serious.

My speculation, of course.