Disney was accused of using San Francisco in several films without permission Rearden Company facial expression capture technology, But the entertainment giant successfully fought off the claim.

2023 years 1 month, Disney argued in court that there should be no jury verdict. A federal judge recently ruled Rearden Did not provide sufficient evidence to support its claims against Disney, Therefore rejected Rearden Action of, But it doesn't affect Rearden Substantive right, That is, the parties can dispute again after the same dispute.

Reardon Said Disney through the visual effects company DD3 Signed a contract to acquire facial expression capture technology, while DD3 employ Rearden A former member of the staff. Rearden Said the clerk was in 2013 Stole equipment and copied copyrighted software programs from encrypted facilities before he left the company. Disney and DD3 Signed for use MOVA Contouring Technology's contract to create realistic animated characters for hit movies. The technology uses phosphorescent makeup on an actor's face and synced cameras and software to transform expressions and movements into realistic animations.

2018 years, U. S. District Court Judge Jon J．Tigar (Jon Tigar) Do not support Rearden Claim ownership of movies and games, But the claims of vicarious and joint tort were not dismissed. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2019 Tigar's ruling was confirmed in 1993.

however, Tegal in 2020 Granted Disney's motion for summary judgment in 2005, Disney believes there is no causal relationship between the use of the technology and the profits made by the films.

Rearden argue, Disney knows and can stop it DD3 tort, Because Disney has the right to terminate the contract DD3 service. Rearden It also claims that its pleadings are fully substantiated DD3 There is direct copyright infringement, Disney also bears secondary responsibility for this.

2022 years 10 month, Disney submitted the long 33 Page motion, Ask the court to dismiss Rearden A second amended indictment. Disney believes that the plaintiff's claim "Far-fetched" , Part of it involves substandard patents.

In court last month, Mr. Teigal did not indicate which way he was leaning. But he is 2023 years 2 month 21 The day was released as long as 16 Page of the court order, Strongly support Disney's position, That the plaintiff had not reasonably argued DD3 Have used MOVA software.

Tegal's conclusion

For the above reasons, Disney's motion was granted. Rearden The lawsuit was dismissed, But does not affect its substantive rights. although Rearden already 2 He amended his indictment, But the court order represents the first time these issues have come before the court, Disney has not otherwise demonstrated that the revision would hurt it, Out of malice, Causing undue delay or futility. Rearden It can be after the command is issued 21 File the amended indictment within days, But only to correct defects identified by the court order. Failure to file the amended complaint in time will result in dismissal of the case, And shall not be brought again for the same cause of action. (Compiled from www. courthousenews. com)

translation: Rason group　proofread: Liu Peng

　　disclaimer: This network reprint or compile the original article from the Internet, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact this website, This network will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.