Jump to content

Updates to Crytek's lawsuit vs CIG


Gremlich

Recommended Posts

CryTek filed their 'opposition' to the Motion for Bond ... consisting of 15 pages where these new lawyers are regurgitating the entire case with even more random allegations thrown in (including complaints that were already dismissed by the Judge) which as far as I am aware is not even relevant to a bond hearing as that stuff should have been in a Third Amended Complaint during the pleading stage and we have already moved beyond that stage when CryTek decided not to amend any further back in January.

Apparently they also forgot that this was supposed to just be an opposition to the Motion for Bond and only at the end did they apparently remember as the conclusion feels rather tacked on. Effectively they wrote 15 pages of random gibberish while grandstanding with claims that CryTek has no financial issues and is loaded with cash just to ask the Judge to either dismiss the Motion entirely or set it much lower for no reason. If CryTek has no financial issues and are loaded with cash I wonder why they take such issue with this measly $2.2M bond... ;)

Hell, this whole 'opposition' felt more like reading one of DS' incoherent blargs. :P

 

 

Also strange to see CryTek claiming that even if CIG is using Lumberyard they would still be bound by CryTek's GLA ... because Lumberyard is CryEngine. It's almost like they now want to claim that Lumberyard is still CryTek's property or something. Not sure if Amazon sees it the same way...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Danakar Endeel said:

Also strange to see CryTek claiming that even if CIG is using Lumberyard they would still be bound by CryTek's GLA ... because Lumberyard is CryEngine. It's almost like they want to claim that Lumberyard is still CryTek's property or something. Not sure if Amazon sees it the same way...

BAH GAWD, THAT'S AMAZON MUSIC! AND HE'S COMIN' IN WITH A STEEL CHAIR!

Holy shit! That's tempting fate if I've ever seen it. Arguing that everything using Amazon's Lumberyard is retroactively bound to CryTek's License Agreement sounds like a good way to get your entire case thrown out at best, or possibly restarting a whole new case that now involves the world's largest company on the side of the accused at worst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CIG's legal team has responded to CryTek's rambling 'opposition' and it looks like they are wiping the floor with CryTek's new legal team. :P

 

document: DEFENDANTS ’ REPLY TO CRYTEK GMBH ’ S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS ’ MOTION FOR BOND

  • NO SHOWING THAT CRYTEK IS GOOD FOR THE MONEY
  • NO SHOWING THAT CIG’S ESTIMATE IS UNREASONABLE
  • NO SHOWING AGAINST “REASONABLE POSSIBILITY”
  • Opposition Argument on Newly-Deflated Objectives is Inconsistent With Crytek’s Numerous Pleadings
  • Crytek Makes No Showing on the Merits
  • Crytek ignores the two big wins CIG already achieved.
  • Crytek does not even try to back up its Faceware claim.
  • Crytek concedes that it cannot prove the essential element of damages on the Bugsmashers claim.
  • Crytek provides no proof or legal support for its bug fixes claim.
  • Crytek fails to show why it should get credited for Amazon’s code or how Crytek was damaged by the loss of credit.
  • Crytek fails to show how the development of Squadron 42 breached the GLA or was impermissible under the Amazon license agreement.

re: Faceware:

In support of its bond motion, CIG submitted sworn declarations not only from CIG but also from non-party Faceware, verifying that, contrary to Crytek’s reckless allegations, Faceware did not have access to the CryEngine source code. Caught red-handed, Crytek submits nothing in response. The last gasp that it has “good reason to believe this disclosure occurred” lacks even an attempt at showing evidence underlying any such belief. This telling, naked, and irresponsible falsehood only underscores the propriety of the requested security.

re: Bugsmashers:

Moreover, Crytek sat on its hands for years before making any objection to the Bugsmashers videos. The record is devoid of Crytek demanding that CIG take any video down. That is not the behavior of a party with“meaningful and legitimate concerns” about the confidentiality of its code.

re: Amazon:

Crytek makes much of the fact that the code is the same, but that is only because Crytek cashed out on the code by selling it to Amazon, making CIG’s license from Amazon possible. If Crytek did not want Amazon to take credit for the code, Crytek should not have sold the code to Amazon. Suing Amazon’s licensees is not the solution.

...

Crytek has not argued, much less shown, that Amazon lacked the right to grant CIG a license to use the same CryEngine source code. Crytek cannot use the GLA to deprive CIG of the benefits of its separate license from Amazon.

TL;DR; In conclusion:

Crytek makes no showing about anything. The need for and propriety of bond security stand effectively undisputed. CIG’s broad freedom under the Amazon license was enabled by Crytek’s sale of the game engine to Amazon (for a lot of money that Crytek cannot show it even still has). The one-sided record empowers the Court to secure a future award of fees and costs flowing from Crytek’s defeats to date and the reasonably possible future defeats as outlined herein.

Imgur album containing images of all the pages from the pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Update from Judge Dolly M. Gee regarding the Motion for Bond

Quote

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court finds that Defendants' Motion for a Bond Pursuant to Cal. Civ. P. Code ยง 1030 57 presently scheduled for hearing on June 28, 2019, is appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. L.R. 7-15. Accordingly, the motion is taken UNDER SUBMISSION and the hearing is vacated. IT IS SO ORDERED. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kti) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 06/27/2019)

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6256484/crytek-gmbh-v-cloud-imperium-games-corp/#minute-entry-92605146

Apparently the Judge does not need any additional information to make a decision regarding the Motion for Bond so the hearing is no longer needed. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Small update regarding the settlement conference which was rescheduled to the 18th of July. There was only 1 paragraph with actual info so I'll quote it below:

Settlement conference held. A settlement agreement is not reached. The Court understands that the parties will continue their efforts to settle the case, and they may contact the Magistrate Judge’s CRD if they wish to schedule a further settlement conference

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.696437/gov.uscourts.cacd.696437.80.0.pdf

Crytek-CIG-settlementconference.thumb.png.135ea88cfd40e19b71b24a9143d7612b.png

My guess is that CryTek demanded ridiculous amount of money and naturally CIG refused as CryTek has nothing substantial to sue over anymore. Then CIG made them a much lower but more reasonable offer (or maybe even demanded that CryTek pay CIG for wasting their time with this frivolous lawsuit) and CryTek refused.

If CryTek does want to continue settlement talks (unlikely as they never made any genuine attempt before) and both parties can come to an agreement we likely won't hear much (if anything at all) apart from a notification that the case is settled and closed. Otherwise I suspect that the next entry we'll get is the Judge's ruling on the Motion for Bond. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crytek GmbH v. CIG - Motion For Bond: GRANTED [$500,000]

Not as high as the requested $2.2M but half a million dollars is still a decent chunk of cash that CryTek now needs to cough up within 30 days if they wish to continue with their joke of a lawsuit.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.696437/gov.uscourts.cacd.696437.81.0.pdf

Quote

CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for a Bond and ORDERS that Plaintiff post a bond in the amount of $500,000 within 30 days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff shall refer to Local Rules 65-2 through 65-10 to ensure proper compliance with this Order. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 65-2–65-10. IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really interesting as it's just a rehash of an earlier report regarding the settlement talks but I'll add it here for completeness sake :P

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6256484/82/crytek-gmbh-v-cloud-imperium-games-corp/

 

Pursuant to this Court’s Order/Referral to ADR (Dkt. 56), the parties jointly submit the below report regarding the progress of settlement discussions.

On July 18, 2019 the parties participated in a Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon. While the settlement negotiations were 5 productive, ultimately the parties were not able to settle the case during the Settlement Conference. However, the parties agreed to continue settlement negotiations in good faith moving forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hope CIG goes for the outright win, avoids any settlement that disallows them to publicly state that they outright won or at least the result of the settlement, considering anything paid would be with backer money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Small update. CryTek (on behalf of both parties) has filed for protective order to keep certain confidential and/or private information from being made available as public record should they enter the Discovery phase. To me this makes sense as you wouldn't want rivals or the general public (including a certain Florida resident) making off with private/confidential information and abuse said information for their own gain. :)

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.696437/gov.uscourts.cacd.696437.83.0.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

"NOTICE of Posting of Cashier's Check in Lieu of Surety Bond filed by Plaintiff Crytek GmbH. Deposit of funds, check no. 660001972, in the amount of $500,000 with the Clerk"

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23222744/Crytek_GmbH_v_Cloud_Imperium_Games_Corp_et_al

1643608343_CryTek-500Kbond.thumb.png.b343e5476ee4c8bfab2d5f16ca30482a.png

 

Seems that for whatever obscure reason CryTek is still unwilling to let the case end and apparently has managed to scrounge together the $500K bond monies demanded by the Judge. I guess maybe Cevat Yerli believes that he might still get CIG to pay him a substantial sum as settlement or that a fishing expedition through Discovery might still strike gold as there's currently nothing for CryTek to gain with their remaining minor claims. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Joint STIPULATION to Continue Trial and Related Dates from March 24, 2020 to June 16, 2020 filed by Defendants Cloud Imperium Games Corp., Roberts Space Industries Corp. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Goldman, Jeremy) (Entered: 09/11/2019)

Nothing much. It appears to be just a Joint Stipulation containing a request to adjust scheduling for the trial date from March 24 2020 to June 16 2020 and includes a chronological listing of past events as well as a Proposed Order. :)

 

EDIT:

ORDER GRANTING PARTIES' JOINT STIPULATION OF TRIAL AND RELATED DATES by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Upon Stipulation86 , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the dates related to the trial date, as set in the Court's 3/7/2019 Schedule of Pretrial & Trial Dates are continued: Jury Trial is continued to 6/16/2020 08:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. Final Pretrial Conference is continued to 5/12/2020 02:00 PM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. See document for further details. (gk)

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23222744/Crytek_GmbH_v_Cloud_Imperium_Games_Corp_et_al

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...

JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS VOLUNTARILY AND CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL AND RELATED DATES

https://www.docdroid.net/t4uERy1/031132165356.pdf

The main things within the document:

  • Rescheduling of the trial to October 13th 2020
  • CryTek wants to file a motion to dismiss voluntarily without prejudice (so they can sue again after CIG releases Squadron 42)
  • CIG plans to oppose CryTek's motion to dismiss as they want to proceed with the litigation and trial
Quote

based on CIG’s responses to certain written discovery, which Crytek contends revealed new information regarding the ripeness of one of Crytek’s existing claims, Crytek wished to voluntarily dismiss its claims against CIG without prejudice, with the intention of refiling the suit against CIG following the release of Squadron 42 by CIG.

ripeness: refers to the readiness of a case for litigation; "a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all."

So from my perspective it appears that CryTek suddenly wants the Judge to dismiss the lawsuit that they themselves filed. Apparently CryTek realizes that CIG has done nothing wrong and as this could cause the Judge to rule in CIG's favor (which would open CryTek up to being forced into paying CIG's legal fees) they want to jump ship while leaving CIG "holding the bag". So CryTek now wants to be let off the hook, stick CIG with the bill of their legal defense fees, and wants to start the whole shitshow again after CIG releases SQ42.

CIG on the other hand has stated that they will oppose CryTek's motions.

Quote

Crytek’s position is that, in light of its anticipated Motion to Dismiss, it would not be an efficient use of party resources to continue serving or producing additional discovery or to move forward with the depositions CIG noticed for early January 2020. Crytek further believes that allowing the depositions to move forward would result in the duplication of efforts—including potentially requiring multiple overseas trips to facilitate depositions in a second litigation on similar claims based on similar facts—should the Court grant Crytek’s motion for voluntary dismissal. 

Moreover, CIG has indicated that it believes its expenses incurred to date in this lawsuit support its opposition to Crytek’s motion to dismiss and, further, that CIG would seek to have the Court impose a condition on any dismissal requiring Crytek to pay some amount of attorneys’ fees to CIG. Accordingly, Crytek believes the continued incurring of attorneys’ fees pending Crytek’s motion is unwarranted. Crytek believes the most efficient path forward is to stay discovery and will be filing a motion to stay or, at a minimum, a motion for protective order to prevent CIG’s noticed deposition from taking place if CIG intends to move forward with the currently scheduled depositions.

CIG’s position is that, unless and until the Court grants Crytek’s Motion to Dismiss or a motion for a protective order, motions which CIG intends to oppose, it is improper for Crytek to delay discovery, including by refusing to produce their CEO and corporate designees for their noticed depositions or to produce Crytek’s relevant documents in advance of these noticed depositions. CIG further believes that, in light of the existing schedule set by the Court, the parties need to proceed with the litigation and continue preparing for trial.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CRYTEK GMBH’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF CRYTEK’S MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

https://www.docdroid.net/7lT4ft0/govuscourtscacd696437920.pdf

 

Looks like CryTek is once again trying to twist things around while playing word-games with select quotes taken out of context in order to claim that CIG never switched over to Lumberyard. They also seem to be making a very big deal out of Squadron 42 being released as a standalone product and that it is against their license agreement (the license agreement that CIG isn't using anymore as they went with Amazon's license instead).

Can't wait for CIG's full response to this but it seems CryTek already included a brief version of CIG's stance on the matter:

Quote

Through the parties’ discussions on Crytek’s intent to seek voluntary dismissal, CIG indicated to Crytek that it would stipulate to a voluntary dismissal if Crytek agreed to five conditions:

  • (1) Crytek’s breach of contract claims, including its claim for credits under GLA §§ 2.8.1 and 2.8.2 will be dismissed with prejudice;
  • (2) CIG’s obligation to provide copyright and trademark notices under the GLA will be terminated;
  • (3) Crytek’s copyright claim for Squadron 42will be dismissed without prejudice and any discovery and work product from this litigation may be used in future litigation of this claim;
  • (4) Crytek will release CIG from all claims from the beginning of time through the effective date, provided that the release will not cover any claims arising from the future release of Squadron 42 outside of the Star Citizen game client, if any; and
  • (5) the payment by Crytek of CIG’s attorneys’ fees in the amount of $500,000.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ORDER RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS CASE VOLUNTARILY

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6256484/97/crytek-gmbh-v-cloud-imperium-games-corp/

Order-MtD-Crytek.png.f60e2db5a039f776f5a3b448969a69ff.png

Apparently I missed it as CryTek apparently already filed its MtD without prejudice without conditions. Then again they suddenly filed a ton of stuff on the 3rd of January including YouTube videos as 'evidence' :P

CRYTEK GMBH’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6256484/91/crytek-gmbh-v-cloud-imperium-games-corp/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Massive number of documents were filed yesterday by CIG in opposition of CryTek's motion to dismiss of their own case. I'll link them below and then have to get me a lot of coffee to wade through it all. :P

Some of the entries had no documents available as it seems they were filed under seal (unredacted versions). I will list the ones that are available to the public below:

  1. Opposition re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Voluntary
  2. DECLARATION of Ortwin Freyermuth in Opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Voluntary
  3. DECLARATION of Jeremy S. Goldman in opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Voluntary

CIG has spent more than $900,000 in attorney’s fees and costs whittling down Crytek’s case to its two last throes—one of which Crytek has conceded is unripe and another of which is meritless.

...

In addition to being unripe, the evidence shows that Crytek filed its SQ42 claim based on the false assumption that CIG’s license from Amazon covered only the publicly released version of Lumberyard. What Crytek did not know is that the license also included rights to prior versions of CryEngine itself, rights which Amazon granted in order to minimize the engineering time it would take CIG to migrate to Lumberyard. It was not until May 22, 2019—a year and a half after filing this lawsuit—that Crytek finally decided to ask Amazon whether it “licensed the Cryengine itself directly to CIG,” conceding that the answer “might potentially have quite some influence on our evaluation of the legal situation . . . .” Goldman Decl., Ex. 3. Amazon confirmed that yes, it had “included Cryengine (what you licensed to us) as part of that license to CIG.

crytekamazon.png.a4160372b0185a6ccb0d86c01a9e535d.png

Also, here is a nice list of CryTek's failed claims throughout the lawsuit and why they failed:

image.thumb.png.352001bfd31bb573837bdbffe8cb5df9.png

The real reason Crytek wants to walk away from its SQ42 claim is because Crytek can no longer delay the inevitable reckoning that its claim is and has always been meritless for at least two independent reasons. First, by suddenly seeking a dismissal without prejudice to preserve its right to refile “once CIG in fact releases Squadron 42,” Crytek concedes CIG’s long-argued point that no breach could even theoretically occur until actual game release.

Second, evidence uncovered in discovery on the Amazon license shows that in May 2019—a year and a half after launching the action—Crytek sheepishly and belatedly emailed Amazon to ask if it had truly granted CIG a license covering prior versions of CryEngine, including those licensed to CIG under the GLA. Goldman Decl., Ex. 3. In that email, Crytek conceded that an affirmative answer would likely tank its SQ42 claim. Amazon confirmed that, yes indeed, it had done just that. Instead of acting responsibly even at that late moment, Crytek persisted, fought the bond motion, and dithered another seven months before bringing this motion.

Throughout this case, Crytek has sacrificed legal sufficiency for outlandish allegations designed to ignite incendiary publicity. Even as Crytek now hobbles toward the exit, it misleads the Court-- and in this closely-watched case, that always means misleading the public--by falsely claiming that CIG did not switch to Amazon Lumberyard and pretending that "new information" came out in discovery about the timing of the future release of SQ42. In face, nothing about the release timing for SQ42 has been shared with Crytek

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Boildown said:

Do they have any claims left?

From what I gather from the documents CryTek has only 2 (meritless) claims left.

  1. Their claim regarding Squadron 42 being in supposed breach
  2. Their claim regarding copyright notices on the splash screen

So they have nothing. :P

 

CIG has spent more than $900,000 in attorney’s fees and costs whittling down Crytek’s case to its two last throes—one of which Crytek has conceded is unripe and another of which is meritless.

...

In addition to being unripe, the evidence shows that Crytek filed its SQ42 claim based on the false assumption that CIG’s license from Amazon covered only the publicly released version of Lumberyard. What Crytek did not know is that the license also included rights to prior versions of CryEngine itself, rights which Amazon granted in order to minimize the engineering time it would take CIG to migrate to Lumberyard. It was not until May 22, 2019—a year and a half after filing this lawsuit—that Crytek finally decided to ask Amazon whether it “licensed the Cryengine itself directly to CIG,” conceding that the answer “might potentially have quite some influence on our evaluation of the legal situation . . . .” Goldman Decl., Ex. 3. Amazon confirmed that yes, it had “included Cryengine (what you licensed to us) as part of that license to CIG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...