Games Workshop vs Chapterhouse Document Dump

[Bigred]

Hundreds of pages dropped into the public record this week from the ongoing case.

Both sides submitted 25 page motions for summary judgement to the Illinois District court with their strongest arguments. The discovery proccess is over, and high ranking Games Workshop and Chapterhouse staff, as well as expert witnesses testimony is now on the public record.

Here's a brief guided tour:

[URL="http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.208.2.pdf"]Partial Index of Recent Exhibits[/URL]

[URL="http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.213.1.pdf"]Games Workshop Motion for Summary Judgement[/URL]
[URL="http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.208.0.pdf"]Chapterhouse Motion for Summary Judgement[/URL]

Expert Witnesses Testimony
[URL="http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.208.19.pdf"]- British Copyright Law Experts (supporting GW)[/URL] Exhibit 8
[URL="http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.208.19.pdf"]- British Copyright Law Expert (Supporting CHS)[/URL] Exhibit 9
[URL="http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.208.21.pdf"]- Military Symbology Expert (supporting CHS)[/URL] Exhibit 12-13

Staff Testimony
[URL="http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.208.32.pdf"]Andrew Jones - GW Head of Legal, Licensing[/URL] Exhibit 15
[URL="http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.208.34.pdf"]Alan Merrett - GW Head of IP[/URL] Exhibit 17-19
[URL="http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.208.34.pdf"]Gillian Stevenson - GW Chief Counsel[/URL] Exhibit 22-23
[URL="http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.208.35.pdf"]John Blanche - GW Art Director[/URL] Exhibit 27

[URL="http://archive.recapthelaw.org/ilnd/250791/"]Master Case Archives[/URL]
There are hundreds of pages of unlabeled supporting documents from both sides from document 204.0 on downward.

UPDATE 9-7-2012
Both sides have issused opposition documents to each other's requests for summary judgement and points of contention to each other's "Undisputed Facts" documents.

[URL="http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.230.0.pdf"]Games Workshop Opposition to CHS Motion for Summary Judgement[/URL]
[URL="http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.229.0.pdf"]Chapterhouse Opposition to GW Motion for Summary Judgement[/URL]

[URL="http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.234.0.pdf"]Chapterhouse Opposition to GW Undisputed Facts Document[/URL]

UPDATE 10-25-2012
Pretrial documents are going up with proposed juror screening questions, and lists of expected witnesses to call.
[URL="http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.249.0.pdf"]Proposed Pre-trial Order[/URL]
Trial date is currently set for December 3rd.

UPDATE 2-13-2013
Latest wrinkle in the case is working its way out.

CHS presented emails Games Workshop failed to disclose to the court between GW and the US Copyright Office. In these email the CO rejected the copyrightability of shoulderpads. This email would have been pertinent to the court in making its own summary judgement decision on copyrightability in the case of certain GW product claims. In almost all cases, judges will defer to the US Copyright Office's decisions on copyright (that is their specialty after all).

[URL="http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.275.1.pdf"]In this document [/URL]GW's attorney tells the US Copyright Office that he is more than happy to let the court make a copyrightability decision for them with some interesting choice of words...

There are now some [URL="http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.272.0.pdf"]back and forth motions [/URL]from both sides around this issue based on whether the Copyright Office has "formally issued a rejection" of GW's shouldperpad claim.

The judge has not commented on whether the court will take this new evidence into account and possibly update or reverse their own summary judgement on the case so far.

The jury-trial date is currently set for April.

The case is onging.

Special Request: All the recent documents start at 204.0 and downwards. There are literally hundreds, upon hundreds of pages of testimony in here. If you find any gems or morsels, please throw them into the comments with a description of what document they are from. Lets crowd-source this thing!

[Chris*ta]

Twenty-five years ago, Games Workshop created a vast fictional universe set in the 41st Millennium (“Warhammer 40,000” or “Warhammer 40K”) where Mankind must battle for survival in a galaxy riven by bloodshed and destruction. (Undisputed Fact #3).

It's not just a fact, it's an Undisputed Fact!

[lattd]

Heres something interesting "The Plaintiff is a United Kingdom corporation with numerous stores in the United States, including in and around Chicago, Illinois, which is its single largest selling market in the United States (Complaint, para 1)."

Something VERY interesting this case seems to be playing out under english law!

[MarneusCalgar]

Great work of compilation, Bigred!

[DrLove42]

Ive always come down hard on GWs side here. CHS are selling products using GWs intellectual property. Unlike other after market suppliers CHS have a certain arrogance above everyone else. If they used other names and tried to be a bit different in sculpts there wouldnt be a problem

My worry is American Underdog vs British company in a US court, that the judge will just come down on CHS side cos of nationality.

[RGilbert26]

While attempting to read some of the GW pdf on the main news article i liked the bit where GW pointed out that CHS at one point boasted about copying GW, and how CHS has stopped mentioning it. Clearly the guy was told to stop by his 'Lawyers' (seeing that he's had to get it pro-bono, sp?) to stop pointing it out clearly for everyone to see that he's cheating/copying GW stuff on purpose.

[Scripts]

Ive always come down hard on GWs side here. CHS are selling products using GWs intellectual property. Unlike other after market suppliers CHS have a certain arrogance above everyone else. If they used other names and tried to be a bit different in sculpts there wouldnt be a problem

My worry is American Underdog vs British company in a US court, that the judge will just come down on CHS side cos of nationality.

Case is being tried in the Chicago area, right? If GW is smart about it (and I'm sure they are) there are probably some good Chicago lawyers working on this case, so I'm sure it'll go GW's way. Chicago lawyers know how things work....

[RGilbert26]

Well i hope GW win but this is America where a group of Fat Americans won against McDonalds, blaming them for being fat.

[Mr Mystery]

I do hope CH get done over on this. As previously said, they have a certain arrogance about them I find distasteful.

It's not just the pinching of images for 'inspiration' either, it's the temerity to then use GW's own names for them dodgy knock offs. Now alternate sculpts are kind of ok, like the random bits other third parties produce. However CH's efforts do seem distinctly arse to my eyes. Lopsided, lacking detail.

Yeah. Not a CH fan. I hope they fall hard over this.

[Mr Mystery]

It's not just a fact, it's an Undisputed Fact!

Translating from Legalese, that would mean information one side presented as fact, which the other side either did not contest and agreed with.

So for instance, if you beat me at a game, and then punched you, when you inevitably drag my butt to court, that we played the game would be an Undisputed Fact. The others would likely be Undisputed as well, as I'm an honest kind of guy