Home Oculus Rift Oculus Looks To Push Back Against ZeniMax By Filing For New Trial

Oculus Looks To Push Back Against ZeniMax By Filing For New Trial

Oculus Looks To Push Back Against ZeniMax By Filing For New Trial
0

Share The Latest News

Facebook has filed a motion on Friday to upend the findings that it infringed on the copyrights of ZeniMax’s patented technology where the jury ruled in favor of ZeniMax in February. The jury came to a conclusion that Oculus owed ZeniMax $500 million in damages with Oculus being liable for $300 million, Brendan Iribe being liable for $150 million and Palmer Luckey owing $50 million. John Carmack, who previously worked for ZeniMax was also found liable for conversion.

In the new four-page motion, attorneys for Oculus argue that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to prove the claim of false designation of origin against Oculus, Luckey, or Iribe, according to Law360. The lawyers also state that the copyright infringements against Oculus, Palmer Luckey, Brendan Iribe, and John Carmack should be dismissed for the very same reasons.

The Oculus team believes that the court should nix the breach of contract claim against Oculus due to it being “unenforceable” and an inexcusable delay in asserting the claim – barred the claim.

Below is an excerpt from the filed motion:

A new trial is warranted for Plaintiffs’ claim against Oculus, Luckey, Iribe, and Carmack for copyright infringement  because the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence, the damages award is excessive, the verdict is based on unreliable and prejudicial expert testimony, and the spoliation testimony and adverse inference instruction tainted the jury;

A new trial is warranted for Plaintiffs’ claim against Defendant Oculus for breach Case 3:14-cv-01849-K because the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence, the damages award is excessive, the verdict is based on unreliable and prejudicial expert testimony, the jury’s laches verdicts are irreconcilably inconsistent, and the spoliation testimony and adverse inference instruction tainted the jury;

This motion is made in the alternative to Defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law. Defendants request a partial new trial only if and to the extent that the Court denies their motion for judgment as a matter of law.

This motion is based on the attached brief, which is being filed under seal; all pleadings and files in this action; all evidence admitted at trial; and on such further argument and evidence that the Court may consider. The undersigned counsel will meet and confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel to reach agreement on a redacted version of the attached brief that can be filed on the public docket next week without revealing information that any party has designated as confidential.

While Oculus believes the case should be dismissed, ZeniMax believes it to be the other way around and should be awarded a larger sum of money for damages that the individuals have caused the company. In fact, ZeniMax has asked for more than $1 billion to block Oculus from selling products that infringe its copyrights.

More news to come.

Share The Latest News

LEAVE YOUR COMMENT

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *