R. James Slaughter

Cases of Note

In re NCAA Name & Likeness Litigation: We represent Electronic Arts Inc. (EA) in a groundbreaking case that will determine how First Amendment protections apply to videogames. This right of publicity case was brought by a putative national class of current and former student athletes in the Northern District of California against EA, the National Collegiate Athletic Association and the Collegiate Licensing Company. Plaintiffs claim EA improperly used the athletes’ likenesses and biographical information in its NCAA Football and NCAA Basketball video games. The case is currently on appeal at the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. At issue is what legal test the circuit will adopt when balancing the right of publicity against rights of free expression.

Dillinger LLC v. Electronic Arts Inc.: We won summary judgment for Electronic Arts Inc in this right-of-publicity and trademark case. The heirs of John Dillinger alleged that EA improperly used the Dillinger name in a series of videogames. Plaintiff sought damages and an injunction to prevent EA from selling the games. The court's orders not only affirmed EA's fundamental First Amendment right to design and publish its games, but also made clear that Indiana's right of publicity statute could not be applied retroactively to individuals who died before it was enacted. Law360 described the rulings as a "total victory" for EA.

AIME v. The Regents of the University of California: We convinced a federal judge to dismiss a breach of contract suit which alleged the University of California, Los Angeles violated the copyrights of educational-video makers when it implemented a system for streaming videos online to students and faculty. The suit, the first of its kind in the nation, asserted federal causes of action for copyright infringement and unlawful circumvention under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, as well as state law claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, interference with contract, and interference with prospective business advantage. In addition to vindicating UCLA, this case may impact the rights of colleges and universities to bring educational videos into the virtual classroom space.

State of New York v. Intel Corp.: We were lead trial counsel for Intel Corp. in a high-profile antitrust case. The New York Attorney General claimed Intel violated federal and state antitrust statutes by maintaining an illegal monopoly in the microprocessor market. We won several key motions near the start of trial that severely limited the scope of New York's case. The matter settled shortly thereafter with a payment by Intel of only $6.5 million in partial repayment of some of New York's costs.

Televisa v. Univision Communications: We represented Univision, the country's leading Spanish language television network, in a breach of contract jury trial. Televisa, a Mexican multimedia conglomerate which supplied Univision with its most popular Spanish language programs, attempted to terminate a long-term exclusive licensing agreement and sought more than $100 million in damages. The case was settled during trial on favorable terms. We also represented Univision in a bench trial which sought declaratory judgment to prevent Televisa from broadcasting over the Internet the same highly popular programs that it exclusively licensed to Univision. We won a complete victory at trial.

Activision v. Double Fine Productions: We intervened on behalf of Electronic Arts (EA), in a suit between Activision and Double Fine in which Activision sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Double Fine from delivering the much-hyped video game Brutal Legend to EA, thereby preventing EA from releasing the game. After winning a tentative ruling denying the preliminary injunction, we settled the case on favorable terms. EA released the game as scheduled.

United States v. Former Chief Executive Officer: We represented the former CEO of a public company in a criminal investigation, a Securities and Exchange Commission suit, a derivative shareholder suit, a breach of contract suit by our client against his former company, and that company's counterclaim for hundreds of millions. All of these matters were related to the company's historical stock option granting practices. We resolved all of the matters against our client with net payments of more than $10 million to our client.

Securities and Exchange Commission, Department of Justice and Shareholders v. Former Chief Executive Officer: We represented the former CEO of an antivirus software company in investigations by the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission, a shareholder derivative lawsuit, and an arbitration arising out of an investigation into the company’s stock option granting process. The government took no action against our client, who also reached a favorable confidential settlement with his former company.

Plaintiff v. Law Firm: We represented a national law firm in a professional negligence case. The plaintiffs contended that our client made evidentiary errors in a patent trial which allowed the other party to prove more than $10 million in damages. Following the filing of a summary judgment motion, we settled on terms favorable to our client.