Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare Lawsuit Dismissed With Prejudice

gamerant.com:

Activision Blizzard has been making headlines recently due to a number of lawsuits. That's the nature of such a massive company, particularly one that's struggled with alleged discriminatory practices. That kind of attention also draws in lawsuits that may not be as well-intentioned, however. The latest example is a lawsuit alleging Activision's Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare used another company's intellectual property. The somewhat audacious case has now been dismissed and with prejudice.

The case was raised in California this past year by entertainment company Brooks Entertainment, which claims to focus on film and TV production. Brooks Entertainment claimed that Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare impugned its intellectual property for its mobile games, Save One Bank and Stock Picker. Further, Brooks accused Activision Blizzard of basing the character Sean Brooks, which the case referred to as Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare's «main character,» on CEO Shon Brooks.

Activision Blizzard Law Firm Claims Unions Exploit 'Lazy' and 'Whiner' Employees

Activision Blizzard responded quickly and dismissively to the lawsuit, even going so far as to claim that Brooks Entertainment's allegations were so clearly incorrect that it was obvious the company had never played Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare. For one, the Save One Bank and Stock Picker comparisons made no sense, as the accusation revolved around a far-future shopping mall that's obviously not based on any modern setting or properties. Further, Sean Brooks is not Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare's main character.

Activision first threatened to file Rule 11 sanctions, which would lead to penalties for filing a frivolous court case revolving around nonfactual evidence, and then followed