Antonick v. Electronic Arts, Inc.,

Filing 352

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer granting in part and denying in part 290 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 300 Motion to Strike. (crblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/25/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

ROBIN ANTONICK,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. C 11-01543 CRB
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S
THIRD MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE

v.
ELECTRONIC ARTS INC,
Defendant.

/

16
17

On April 19, 2013, the Court held a hearing on Defendant Electronic Arts Inc.’s Third

18

Motion for Summary Judgment (dkt. 290). At the conclusion of that hearing, the Court took

19

Defendant’s Motion under submission. The Court is mindful that the parties would like to

20

know the Court’s rulings as soon as possible in order to prepare for trial, which is set to begin

21

in less than a month. Accordingly, the Court makes the following rulings, and will provide a

22

detailed explanation for such rulings in a separate and subsequent order.

23
24
25

First, the Court finds that Antonick’s contract claim for unpaid royalties is limited to
derivative works within the meaning of United States copyright law.
Second, the Court finds that, of the similarities identified by Plaintiff’s expert, only

26

two – “field width” and “plays and formations” – are potentially protectable under copyright

27

law, and that a jury should determine the issue of substantial similarity. Accordingly, the

28

Court GRANTS the Motion as to all of the similarities other than those two.

1

Third, the Court DENIES the Motion as to the other contract claims.

2

Fourth, the Court DENIES the Motion as to the fraud claim. The Court has serious

3

concerns about the fraud claim, but finds that it will be in a better position to rule on that

4

claim once the evidence has been presented at trial.

5

Fifth, as the Court does not rely on Garry Kitchen’s report in resolving the Motion for

6

Summary Judgment, EA’s Motion to Strike that report (dkt. 300) is DENIED AS MOOT;

7

EA may re-notice the Motion to Strike in connection with trial.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: April 25, 2013

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

G:\CRBALL\2011\1543\order re MSJ copyright - short.wpd

2