Judge dismisses case involving technology used in Avengers movie

“Avengers: Infinity War”

Marvel/Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures/Courtesy Everett Collection

The Walt Disney Co. has addressed allegations in a case that is part of a long-running lawsuit at the intersection of Hollywood and Silicon Valley over the use of allegedly stolen visual effects technology to animate some of the company’s most popular characters in its highest-grossing films.

A federal judge on Thursday rejected copyright infringement claims made by Redin, finding that it could not prove claims that its popular visual effects technology was widely used in the creation of… Avengers: Infinity War And Avengers: Endgame. The court delayed ruling on whether Disney infringed the visual effects company’s patents.

At the heart of the case: allegations that DD3, with which Disney has collaborated on films such as… beauty and the beast, Guardians of the Galaxy And multiple Avengers installments, may not have possessed the technology that allegedly played such a large role in film production. A complex chain of royalties, which included a bankruptcy and a fraudulent sale, has led to confusion over the ownership and licenses of MOVA Contour Reality Capture.

Last year, an Oakland jury found that Disney infringed Ridin’s intellectual property rights when it used copyrighted technology to animate characters in a movie. beauty and the beast. However, the compensation was minimal, with a jury awarding the company nearly $600,000 after finding that Disney knew it may have been using MOVA Contour improperly but continued to use it regardless. Part of the judgment, approximately $350,000, was intended to recover profits attributable to the use of the technology. Disney is expected to lose more than $100 million in this case, in light of allegations that the film’s box office success was due to visual effects work done by MOVA.

There remain allegations that Disney is liable for vicarious and contributory copyright infringement, as well as patent infringement, for the alleged use of the technology in Avengers: Infinity War And Avengers: Endgame. There are serious damages on the table, as Disney faces the possibility of having to forfeit profits from the films, which combined have grossed more than $6 billion.

Claims of copyright infringement have increased MOVA’s contribution to films.

Tigar last year dismissed Rearden’s lawsuit, concluding that the company could not support its claims of copyright and patent infringement because there was no evidence that its VFX technology did most of the work in creating certain CG characters. He found that directors may be “the authors of facial motion capture results.”

In an amended complaint, Rearden cited new evidence alleging that DD3 had a computer file depicting the arrest of Mark Ruffalo, who played the Hulk in The Hulk. Avengers installments contain “large amounts of copied MOVA source code covered by Rearden’s copyright” in the software.

Tigar was not convinced that Rearden had proven the allegations that the file had been used to move the structure. He asserted that Rearden failed to specify the date the file was created or any other indications of his purpose in creating the films.

Reddin’s arguments “do not sufficiently support the reasonable inference that DD3 ran MOVA or copied the MOVA source code to output files so that MOVA was used extensively in creating… Infinity War And game over“,” the order stated.

Because Redin’s new allegations are insufficient to support claims that DD3 engaged in direct copyright infringement, Tigar concluded that Disney could not be held liable at this stage of the litigation for claims of secondary copyright infringement. He also said he would rule on whether patent infringement claims would be allowed after a process in which a court determines the scope and meaning of patent claims.

The judge allowed Rearden another opportunity to amend his complaint to fix the copyright infringement claims as Rearden had not yet received certain documents in DD3’s possession. “The court will therefore give Reddin one last opportunity to amend his copyright infringement claim, as Reddin must be willing to make his amendments without warning and/or with additional detail explaining the basis of his beliefs,” he wrote.