As you may (or may not) be aware, there are well over 30 major cases that deal with intellectual property protection of video games, and that’s just patents and copyrights. We have dissected these cases and, over the next few months, will be publishing an analysis of each case. New case analysis posts will be up every Tuesday, and the title will begin with “Case:”. You can also subscribe to our Atom/RSS site feed for automatic updates.
You can receive automatic updates on your home page or in your news reader whenever the Patent Arcade is updated. Simply enter the URL of our Atom/RSS feed, which is
You can insert this URL into any RSS news reader or RSS-enabled home page (such as Yahoo! or Netscape) and receive Patent Arcade updates directly on your web page. Any questions? Send us an email.
In trying to import some order and contemplated thoughtfulness into this blog, we have decided to use standard formatting in the titles of posts to ease later search. Here is what we have so far, and there is no guarantee that this won’t change:
- Case: These posts provide information and/or analysis about decided cases. The title may include a parenthetical to indicate whether the case is directed to patents (P), Copyrights (C), Trademarks (TM), Trade Secrets (TS), or other (O) forms of video game protection. The title will generally also include the case name and short description of what event occurred prompting the posting. Examples of events include: Trial Court Opinion or Order [TrialCt], Appellate Court Opinion or Order [AppCt], Supreme Court Opinion [SCt].
- Update: These posts provide information and/or analysis about ongoing cases. The title may include a parenthetical to indicate whether the case is directed to patents (P), Copyrights (C), Trademarks (TM), Trade Secrets (TS), or other (O) forms of video game protection. The title will generally also include the case name and short description of what non-final event occurred prompting the posting. Examples of non-final events include: Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), Preliminary Injunction (PI)
- TechBit: These posts provide interesting information about video game technology, although not necessarily of a legal nature.
More categories to follow as needed. Email us with any comments or suggestions to email@example.com.
Not exactly of a legal nature, but certainly of interest to our audience:
There will be a half-hour global premiere, with a performance from The Killers, airing exclusively on MTV channels around the world on May 12 and 13.
Well not exactly a video game… yet, but it might apply sometime in the future. Hasbro sued RADgames in the Southern District of New York back in February for RADgames’ add-on to Monopoly. The court initially granted Hasbro a Temporary Restraining Order pending a hearing for a Preliminary Injunction. RADgames developed a modified version of Monopoly which uses a second game board in conjunction with the original. Figure 8 of U.S. Patent 5,810,359 is reproduced below:
On April 7, 2005, United States District Court Judge Hon. Gerard E. Lynch lifted the TRO and deined Hasbro’s request for a Preliminary Injunction, stating that “RADgames has added a new, original creation to the market which is designed for use with the plaintiff’s product but is distinctive in its own right.”
While RADgames patents are primarily directed to board games, the claims (at least on their face) are not all limited to physical creations, and could also apply to versions of the game implemented as a video game or computer game.
The case is Hasbro, Inc. v. Radgames, Inc., case no. 1:05-cv-02324-GEL, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Well I received some quick validation for this blog today. Many may be unsure whether to start a blog and/or question their use. For the curious, there is an enlightening article, “Do You Blog?” by Sarah Kellogg, in the April, 2005, issue of Washington Lawyer, the official journal of the District of Columbia bar. It’s a very interesting read and gives me hope and motivation to continue development of the Patent Arcade.
…And by cast of characters I don’t mean Shadow, Speedy, Bashful and Pokey (or their nicknames of Inky, Pinky, Blinky, and Clyde). We’re all typically Xbox types, but Steve allegedly also has a PlayStation. The primary crew is as follows:
Ross Dannenberg, Esq. (Publishing Editor; Editor, Copyrights & Patents). Gamertag: Aviator. Click here for more information about me.
Steve Chang, Esq. (Editor, Patent Litigation). Gamertag: SChang1038. Click here for more information about Steve.
Rob Katz, Esq. (Editor, Design Patents). Gamertag: FlyersCaps. Click here for more information about Rob.
We have invited others to help us out as well, but we maintain a strict requirement that all editors be gamers as well as IP attorneys. Not only that, you specifically have to beat Steve or me at Halo 2 to become an Editor. Rob got lucky… once. We’ll update the cast of characters as applicable.
If there are any topics you’d like to see discussed please send us an email and we’ll see what we can do.
-Ross Dannenberg (Aviator), Publishing Editor
The time is 9:47 P.M. on April 5, 2005. It seems overdue, as the idea has been in the works for quite some time, but this marks the (unofficial) launch of the Patent Arcade. My name is Ross Dannenberg, and I am the Editor for the Patent Arcade. The Patent Arcade is a venue providing information regarding Intellectual Property Protection of Video Games, We’ll cover console games, computer games, arcade games, game consoles, and everything that has to do with VIDEO GAMES. Issues that we expect to cover include copyright protection, trademark protection, trade secrets, and patent protection of video games. I’ll introduce the recurring cast of characters you’ll meet in the Patent Arcade in a (hopefully) soon to follow post. For now, welcome to the Arcade, and please feel free to email us with any topics you’d like to see discussed.
-Ross Dannenberg, Editor-in-Chief