A suit against Activision Blizzard was dismissed past period because, according to a justice successful the Southern California District Court wherever the ailment was brought, the plaintiffs didn’t play capable Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare to marque an informed lawsuit against the maligned publisher. For erstwhile successful Activision Blizzard’s galore contentious ineligible battles, things ended smoothly.

According to a report by the instrumentality steadfast Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Activision Blizzard was sued successful November 2021 by Brooks Entertainment, Inc., a California-based institution specializing successful movie and TV accumulation and different forms of entertainment. However, Kotaku couldn’t find an authoritative website for the company. Brooks Entertainment and its CEO, Shon Brooks, who describes himself arsenic an inventor, assertion they clasp the trademarks for the fiscal mobile games Save One Bank and Stock Picker. It should beryllium noted that Kotaku couldn’t verify the beingness of these games, either. Regardless, all 3 of these entities, alongside Activision Blizzard and 2016's Infinite Warfare, were astatine the halfway of the lawsuit.

In November 2021, Brooks Entertainment alleged Activision ripped disconnected intelligence spot from some Save One Bank and Stock Picker, arsenic good arsenic the individuality of its owner, successful Infinite Warfare. To beryllium much specific, the ailment asserted the “main character” for the 2016 first-person shooter, Sean Brooks, was based connected the company’s CEO and that each 3 games had “scripted conflict scenes that instrumentality spot successful a precocious manner couture buying halfway mall.” There were different similarities, too, but these claims were the crux of the complaint.

But if you’ve played conscionable an hr oregon truthful of Infinite Warfare, you’d cognize this is each wrong. For one, the main quality isn’t Corporal Sean Brooks astatine each but alternatively his squadmate Commander Nick Reyes, a abstraction marine who becomes the skipper of the game’s superior militia. Moreover, portion determination is a scripted conflict country successful a buying mall, it takes spot successful acold aboriginal Geneva, 1 of galore in-game locations, and Sean Brooks ain’t successful it. You play arsenic Reyes the full time.

In January 2022, Activision’s counsel wrote to Brooks Entertainment’s counsel that the ailment “contain[ed] superior factual misrepresentations and errors, and that the claims acceptable distant therein are some factually and legally frivolous.” If the institution didn’t retreat the lawsuit, Activision would record Rule 11 sanctions, penalties requiring the plaintiff to wage a good for submitting dubious oregon improper arguments without substantial—or, for that matter, accurate—evidentiary support. And that’s precisely what happened successful March 2022, erstwhile Activision filed its motions for sanctions against Brooks Entertainment, saying the plaintiffs failed to play Infinite Warfare and provided inaccurate filings.

The Southern California District Court accepted Activision’s motions connected July 12, dismissed Brook Entertainment’s suit with prejudice (meaning the assertion cannot beryllium refiled successful that court), and ordered the plaintiff’s counsel to compensate the troubled steadfast for the wealth and clip it wasted. In its conclusion, the tribunal said the plaintiff failed to behaviour a thorough and tenable enquiry into the applicable facts astir the crippled earlier filing the suit.

“Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare is a first-person shooter game, not first- and third-person arsenic alleged, and Sean Brooks does not behaviour a scripted conflict country successful a precocious manner couture buying mall,” the tribunal said successful its ruling successful favour of Activision. “Plaintiff’s counsel could person easy verified these facts anterior to filing the factually baseless Complaint, conscionable arsenic the Court easy verified them wrong the archetypal hr and a fractional of playing the game.”

Kotaku reached retired to Activision Blizzard for comment.

Richard Hoeg, a lawyer who specializes successful integer and video crippled law, told Kotaku that unprotectable concepts similar the names of radical utilized successful fictional amusement are beauteous hard to copyright and assertion infringement upon.

“It’s hard to accidental wherefore the suit was brought up,” Hoeg said. “Certainly if a suit gets kicked retired *with sanctions* it wasn’t a precise bully 1 successful the archetypal place. It mightiness beryllium simply hubris oregon it whitethorn person been counsel encouraging a suit against a well-resourced party. The suit itself says [Brooks Entertainment] pitched a crippled to Activision betwixt 2010 [and] 2015. That each said, the infringement suit is awful, alleging infringement connected specified unprotectable concepts as: ‘Shon Brooks navigates done some exotic and action-packed locations and Sean Brooks navigates done some exotic and action-packed locations.’”

Hoeg went connected to accidental it’s hard getting “actual sanctions imposed connected you” due to the fact that that would beryllium a level of atrocious suit filing good supra conscionable a elemental dismissal.

“The tribunal fundamentally finds the full statement crazy,” Hoeg concluded. “Brooks Entertainment adjacent included Rockstar Games for nary crushed (which didn’t assistance their origin with the judge). So, the sanctions present are Brooks Entertainment [has] to wage for Activision’s ineligible fees and costs.”

While things whitethorn person ended good for Activision this time, the disparaged steadfast is inactive causing ineligible headaches. The institution was just blasted by Diablo devs for union-busting. Again. Ugh.