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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?