BMW Dismisses Design Patent Lawsuit Against TurboSquid

TurboSquidTwo months ago, we reported on a lawsuit filed in New Jersey by BMW against digital media company, TurboSquid, Inc.  According to the complaint, TurboSquid was “marketing 3-D virtual models of vehicles that infringe the BMW trademarks, trade dress, and design patents.”  The case presented interesting legal questions with respect to IP and virtual reality.  For example, can selling a digital 3D model of a car, which exists only in virtual reality, infringe a design patent?

On August 10, BMW filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of the case — without prejudice — leaving open the possibility of BMW “rebooting” its lawsuit against TurboSquid in the future.  Thus, at least for now, it appears that the interesting legal questions are left to be resolved in a different or future dispute.  Interestingly, we note that TurboSquid no longer sells 3-D models of BMW or Mini Cooper vehicles on their website — although they do have models of other vehicle manufacturers, such as Tesla, Audi and Toyota.

Advertisements

SUPER SMASH BROS VR EDITION: An Update on ZeniMax v. Oculus

zenimax v. oculus title

The legal battle between two heavyweights over the Oculus Rift continues between ZeniMax Media and id Software, in one corner, and Oculus and Facebook, in the other.  In a court filing this week, the two sides reportedly failed to reach a resolution in a recent court-ordered mediation.

The lawsuit also made headlines in December 2015 when Facebook’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, was ordered to sit for a deposition in the case.

If you’ve been living under a rock for the past two years, I’ve provided a summary below.  (I also recommend reading the complaint, a lengthy, but fascinating read for those interested in the VR industry.)

In May 2014, ZeniMax Media, parent company of id Software and Bethesda Softworks, filed suit in a federal court in Texas, asserting claims of trade secret misappropriation, copyright infringement, breach of contract, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, trademark infringement and false designation against Oculus and Palmer Luckey.  (Zenimax has since amended its complaint to add Facebook and John Carmack as defendants.)

In its complaint, ZeniMax alleged that, in 2012, Luckey approached John Carmack (then, an iD software employee) about a Rift prototype, which Carmack offered to help improve.  Subsequently, Carmack and other ZeniMax employees allegedly “transformed” the Rift prototype by adding positional tracking, reducing latency and making other significant improvements.  (According to Facebook, the improvements to the Rift amounted to “hot-gluing” a motion sensor previously purchased from Hillcrest, “placing tape on the outside edges of the lenses, attaching a strap, and plugging the headset into an external power source.”)

Before revealing the improved Rift prototype — and at ZeniMax’s request — Luckey executed an NDA, which stated that ZeniMax would retain exclusive ownership of the IP disclosed under the agreement.  (Facebook has since denied that the NDA is valid or enforceable.)  Carmack later demonstrated the enhanced Rift prototype at E3 in 2012, which resulted in significant attention and acclaim regarding the HMD.

carmack

After a successful E3, Luckey and Oculus allegedly continued to seek out Carmack’s expertise, but ignored ZeniMax’s overtures regarding compensation for its IP. Moreover, Oculus and Luckey allegedly demonstrated the Rift prototype using ZeniMax’s properties (Doom 3: BFG Edition and RAGE) against ZeniMax’s wishes.  In addition, Oculus later solicited and hired away several ZeniMax employees, including Carmack, who became CTO of Oculus.  According to ZeniMax, Oculus has never paid a dime to Zenimax.

In March 2014, Facebook announced that it would acquire Oculus for $2 billion in cash and stock.  Two months later, Zenimax filed its lawsuit.

Perhaps on a related note, earlier this year at E3, Bethesda, ZeniMax’s subsidiary, announced that it was developing virtual reality versions of its blockbuster AAA titles, Fallout 4 and Doom, which, unsurprisingly, would be released on the HTC Vive.

The jury trial in the ZeniMax v. Oculus case is scheduled to begin on Monday, January 9, 2017.

BMW v. TurboSquid: Virtual Patent Infringement?

The blog, Protecting Designs, reported an interesting case filed last month that may have legal ramifications to the burgeoning VR industry:  BMW v. TurboSquid, Inc.

The issue:  Can selling a digital 3D model of a car, which exists only in virtual reality, infringe a design patent?

According to Wikipedia,

TurboSquidTurboSquid is a digital media company that sells stock 3D models used in 3D graphics to a variety of industries, including computer games, architecture, and interactive training. The company, headquartered in New Orleans, Louisiana in the United States, is most known for brokering the sale of 3D models in return for a percentage of the sales. As of 2014, TurboSquid had over 370,000 3D models in its library, making it the largest library of 3D models for sale in the world.

TurboSquid’s website lists Sony Pictures, Activision and Pixar as a few of their clients.

On May 3, 2016, BMW filed a complaint in a federal district court in New Jersey alleging, among other claims, that TurboSquid’s 3D models of certain vehicles infringe BMW’s design patents.  In particular, BMW alleges that TurboSquid is “marketing 3-D virtual models of vehicles that infringe the BMW trademarks, trade dress, and design patents.  [TurboSquid] markets and tags BMW-trademarked 3-D virtual models of BMW vehicles as suitable for games.”

mini
Image from U.S. Patent No. D664,896

BMW’s design patents (D473,165, D639,209, D664,896, D714,190, D714,687, and D724,495) are directed to BMW, Mini, and Rolls-Royce branded vehicles produced by BMW Group. The ’165 patent is titled “Surface configuration of a vehicle, toy and miscellaneous consumer products incorporating the design,” and the other patents are each titled “Vehicle, toy, and/or replicas thereof.” BMW have also asserted trademark infringement claims against TurboSquid and is seeking injunctive relief, disgorgement of all of TurboSquid’s profits under 35 U.S.C. Section 289, attorneys’ fees and other remedies.

 

It remains to be seen whether “virtual” objects can infringe a design patent (or perhaps in a future case, utility patents).

For more analysis on the trademark claims, Patently-O had an interesting write-up which can be accessed here.