Law of Cards: Wildcat Files Lawsuit Against Wizards of the Coast

Law of Cards: Wildcat Files Lawsuit Against Wizards of the Coast

The most talked about trading card lawsuit in 2012 easily has been the electronic trading card (ETC) patent suit filed by Wildcat Intellectual Property Holdings (Wildcat). As you'll recall, this is the case where Wildcat sued a slew of companies like Topps and Panini over their online trading card services.

Most of the conversations I've had with others about this case involve companies on the outside looking in, gauging whether or not there is a future for them in the ETC field.

Just about every company I've spoken with has adopted the same strategy: wait-and-see.

Legal translation: You know, since Panini, Topps and their friends are already spending money trying to blow up Wildcat's patents, let's get a free ride on their coattails. Heck, if they are successful, then we'll launch our own ETCs.

It's a good strategy. Let someone else pay the money and do the work, and if defendants win, swoop on in afterward. Of course, if the defendants lose and the patent prevails, well, it's a good thing you didn't launch a product that'd likely be the next target.

Not only are potential entrants into the ETC field taking the wait-and-see approach, the original defendants look to have adopted the same strategy: very few of them have rolled out additional ETC products. They're also likely awaiting the outcome of the first suit before they invest more time and effort into new ETC products.

Wizards of the Coast (WotC), however, recently bucked this strategy and rolled out a new ETC product. Originally, Wildcat sued WotC for its "Magic: The Gathering – Tactics" product. Undaunted, Wizards rolled out a newer product this September called "Magic: The Gathering Online."

So, what happened? You guessed it—Wildcat sued WotC on its ETC patent. Again.

Unlike the other Wildcat lawsuit that has a traffic jam of defendants (Panini, Topps, Electronic Arts, Pokemon, Sony and Zynga), this lawsuit is just Wildcat v. WotC. Mano-a-mano.

Sure, it's streamlined compared to the original Wildcat case, but, in all likelihood, this case will get swallowed by the larger action (since it involves the same issues), or it will get stayed (because the patent is battling through a reexamination process at the USPTO).

There are two contrasting takeaways from this latest lawsuit. First, if you roll out a new ETC product, Wildcat is watching, and it'll likely pounce on you. Second, WotC obviously believes the first case (or the re-exam) will make Wildcat's patent disappear. So why not launch another product? Since everyone else in the industry is more timid, there's an opportunity for WotC to establish itself as a leader in the ETC market.

Of course, WotC's new strategy could backfire and open itself up for additional damages, but, fortune often favors the bold.

I'm looking forward to seeing if the other defendants share Wizards' confidence and roll out new products themselves. Or to see if this action motivates additional companies to enter the ETC market.

Why? Well, the ETC market is an underdeveloped market that could make a lot of companies a lot of money, so it would be nice to see new companies and products in this market. But, I'd also like to see WotC's actions inspire more companies to jump into this market for more selfish reasons. You see, the more new products and new entrants into the ETC market, the more Wildcat lawsuits there will likely be, which will give me more to write about.

The information provided in Paul Lesko's "Law of Cards" column is not intended to be legal advice, but merely conveys general information related to legal issues commonly encountered in the sports industry. This information is not intended to create any legal relationship between Paul Lesko, the Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides & Barnerd LLC or any attorney and the user. Neither the transmission nor receipt of these website materials will create an attorney-client relationship between the author and the readers.

The views expressed in the "Law of Cards" column are solely those of the author and are not affiliated with the Simmons Law Firm. You should not act or rely on any information in the "Law of Cards" column without seeking the advice of an attorney. The determination of whether you need legal services and your choice of a lawyer are very important matters that should not be based on websites or advertisements.

ebaysmalllogo Image
2909261603524040 1 Image
MTG - 4X Rayne, Academy Chancellor X4 - Urza's Destiny Rare EX NM Playset
1214206693274040 1 Image
1 Xenagos, the reveler Plainswalker NM + NIGHTVEIL & Lord of the Void + RARE LOT
1413876884034040 1 Image
3500 Cards Return To Ravnica Magic Cards 300+ Rares From RTR Store Inventory Lot
2615755226214040 1 Image
Vintage Magic Card Collection 100 Rares 3500 Cards From Antiquities - Scourge
3908745432404040 1 Image
2813491365004040 1 Image
Magic the Gathering MTG Collectible Metal Lapel Pins lot rare
3109453576854040 1 Image
3808539781164040 1 Image
4 Death's Shadow - Worldwake MtG Magic Black Rare 4x x4
3011986390684040 1 Image
MTG 1x RUSSIAN GREATER GARGADON ex x1 Timespiral Rare EDH Magic the Gathering
2313126732314040 1 Image
2911576547884040 1 Image
MTG 1x KOREAN FOIL ASH ZEALOT NM x1 Return to Ravnica Rare Magic the Gathering
2313126760894040 1 Image
« Previous12345
 |  E-Mail | URL
Paul Lesko is a shareholder at Simmons Hanly Conroy and the chair of its Intellectual Property Department ( Don’t hold the fact that Paul is a lawyer against him, he’s also a rabid baseball and college basketball fan, and an avid baseball card collector. Paul can be found on Twitter @Paul_Lesko and Google+.

User Comments

  1. Magic: the Gathering Online was launched in 2002.

  2. Is there an outcome to this case? Did Wildcat succeed in suing Wizards of the Coast? If so, what did the settlement comprise of? Or was Wildcat viewed as a Patent Troll?

    Thanks in advance

  3. Jules » This was the last update we had:

    Leave a Comment: