LJN Newsletters

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania decided it has supplemental jurisdiction over a legal malpractice claim included in a suit over renewal rights to the 1970s hit 'Disco Inferno.' Dimensional Music Publishing LLC v. Kersey.

For videogame developers, publishers and investors, the most important asset is the intellectual property rights they own or control in a game. All of the elements of a videogame ' the story, audiovisual elements, underlying computer code and even 'gameplay' elements (ie, that specify the way a user interacts with and experiences a game) ' are subject to one or more forms of intellectual property protection. Traditionally, intellectual property protection for videogames has been based upon either trade secret, copyright or trademark. Patents, however, are quickly becoming an important part of the videogame industry.

BANKRUPTCY PRIORITIES/PAYMENTS TO MUSICIANS
BANKRUPTCY/COPYRIGHT STATUTORY DAMAGES
COPYRIGHT OWNERSHIP/DERIVATIVE WORKS
MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS/PUBLIC PERFORMANCE

The Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Five, found that the trial court didn't err in refusing to shift the burden of proof to defendant NBC Studios in a suit for contingent compensation by the executive producers of the TV series 'The Profiler.' Sanders/Moses Productions Inc. v. NBC Studios Inc.

Copyright-infringement suits in which plaintiff accuses defendant of improperly taking from the plaintiff to create the defendant's work are common in the entertainment industry. But even with the frequency and long history of this type of litigation, infringement principles continue to develop as litigators face many substantive and procedural challenges. In the following interview, conducted by Entertainment Law & Finance Editor-in-Chief Stan Soocher, veteran entertainment-litigator Christine Lepera ' a partner in the New York office of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP ' discusses infringement litigation issues from her perspective as defense counsel in the copyright suit that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against rappers Ludacris and Kanye West and related companies. BMS Entertainment/Heat Music LLC v. Bridges.

Burgo v. Lady of America Franchise Corp., CCH Bus. Franchise Guide '13,367 (C.D. Cal. May 4, 2006) addresses choice of law clauses that often come into effect in franchisor-franchisee disputes. Twenty-two franchises of this women's fitness franchise filed suit in a California federal court against the Florida-based franchisor ('LOA') and its Florida-based president ('Wittenberns') for violations of the California Franchise Investment Law ('CFIL') and the California Unfair Trade Practices Act, common law fraud, and violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Practices Act, and the Florida Franchise Misrep-resentation Act ('FFMA'). The franchise agreement contained a choice of law clause, which provided that the agreement and 'the relationship created thereby' would be 'construed and governed solely by internal Florida Law, without regard to any conflict of laws rules.' LOA moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, and Wittenberns moved to dismiss for lack of in personam jurisdiction.

Roark Capital is one of the most prominent private equity firms participating in the franchise industry. The company has been investing in franchise operating companies since 2001, and has invested in nine brands comprising more than 2600 locations in 50 states and 29 countries. The firm's roots are in franchising, as Neal Aronson, founder and managing partner, was co-founder of U.S. Franchise Systems, Inc., before selling the franchise operator and starting Roark Capital.

The decision by the House of Lords in Inntrepreneurs Pub Company v. Crehan concerning the Inntrepreneur chain of franchised pubs and its exclusive supply of beer under the franchise agreement is the latest and probably final step in a long-standing dispute about the consequences of the infringement of European Competition Law by a franchise (or indeed other) agreement. It concluded that damages can be awarded for breach of Article 81(1) of the Treaty of Rome ' the EU's antitrust law ' but should not be awarded in this particular case.