Epic Games, Inc. et al v. Josefsson et al, No. 4:2017cv05961 - Document 29 (N.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION RE Docket No. 28 . ***Civil Case Terminated.*** Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 1/2/2018. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/2/2018)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Epic Games, Inc. et al v. Josefsson et al 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Doc. 29 William C. Rava (pro hac vice) WRava@perkinscoie.com Holly M. Simpkins (pro hac vice) HSimpkins@perkinscoie.com PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: 206.359.8000 Facsimile: 206.359.9000 Lauren B. Cohen, Bar No. 285018 LCohen@perkinscoie.com PERKINS COIE LLP 3150 Porter Drive Palo Alto, CA 95130 Telephone: 650.838.4300 Facsimile: 650.838.4350 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 10 11 EPIC GAMES, INC. and EPIC GAMES INTERNATIONAL S.À.R.L. 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 15 16 17 EPIC GAMES, INC., a Maryland corporation; and EPIC GAMES INTERNATIONAL S.À.R.L., a Luxembourg Société à Responsibilité Limitée, Case No. 17-cv-05961-HSG FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Plaintiffs, 18 19 v. 20 PHILIP JOSEFSSON, an individual; and ARTEM YAKOVENKO, an individual, 21 Defendants. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1131695355 FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Case No. 3: 17-cv-05961-HSG Dockets.Justia.com 1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT: 2 3 1. This is an action for copyright infringement; trademark infringement; false designation of origin; breach of contract; and California unfair competition. 4 2. Defendant Artem Yakovenko (“Yakovenko”), a resident of Smolensk, Russia, 5 submitted to the jurisdiction of this Court by submitting a counter notification consenting to the 6 jurisdiction of this district under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 512. 7 3. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Epic Games, Inc. and Epic Games 8 International, S.À.R.L. (collectively “Epic”) and Yakovenko as well as the subject matter at issue 9 in this action. 10 4. Yakovenko acknowledges that he has reviewed this Final Judgment and 11 Permanent Injunction, the Stipulation for Entry of Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction, and 12 the Settlement Agreement and understands their meaning and effect. 13 5. Epic alleges that Yakovenko created, developed, and/or wrote a purported 14 software cheat for Fortnite’s Battle Royale game mode; Yakovenko then created and posted 15 several videos on YouTube to advertise, demonstrate, and distribute his cheat; Yakovenko’s 16 videos feature Epic’s FORTNITE mark and full screen gameplay using the purported cheat; and 17 while Yakovenko’s “cheat” does not appear to be a functional Fortnite cheat, it functions as a 18 bitcoin miner that infects the user’s computer with a virus that causes the user’s computer to mine 19 bitcoin for the benefit of an unknown third party. 20 6. Judgment. Based on the Parties’ stipulation, judgment is entered in favor of Epic 21 and against Yakovenko on the following causes of action: copyright infringement, trademark 22 infringement, false designation of origin, breach of contract, and California unfair competition. 23 7. Permanent Injunction. Artem Yakovenko along with his agents, representatives, 24 partners, joint venturers, servants, employees, and all those persons or entities acting in concert or 25 participation with him, shall be and hereby are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED and restrained 26 from: 27 28 -2131695355 FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Case No. 3: 17-cv-05961-HSG 1 a) 2 distribution of Fortnite or any other works now or hereafter protected by any 3 copyright owned by Epic; 4 b) 5 anything that infringes Epic’s works now or hereafter protected by any copyright 6 owned by Epic; 7 c) 8 Epic’s copyrights, or of Epic’s rights in, or right to use or exploit, its copyrights; 9 d) unfairly competing with Epic in any manner whatsoever; 10 e) cheating in any game, now existing or that is created in the future, 11 developed or published by Epic or its corporate affiliates; and 12 f) 13 performing any of the activities referenced in paragraphs 7(a) through 7(e) above. 14 8. imitating, copying, or making any other infringing use or infringing creating, writing, developing, advertising, promoting, and/or distributing engaging in any other activity that constitutes an infringement of any of assisting, aiding, or abetting any other person or entity in engaging in or Future Claims Unaffected. Nothing in this Final Judgment and Permanent 15 Injunction precludes Epic or Yakovenko from asserting any claims or rights that arise solely after 16 Yakovenko’s stipulation to this Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction or that are based upon 17 any breach of, or the inaccuracy of, any representation or warranty made by Yakovenko in the 18 Stipulation for Entry of Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction, the Final Judgment and 19 Permanent Injunction or the Settlement Agreement reached by the Parties. 20 9. Claims Against Third Parties Unaffected. Nothing in this Final Judgment and 21 Permanent Injunction precludes Epic or Yakovenko from asserting any claims or rights as against 22 any third party. 23 24 25 26 10. Non-Appealability. This Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction is final and may not be appealed by either party. 11. Rule 65(d). Yakovenko waives any objection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d) (pertaining to injunctions) to paragraph 7 above. 27 12. 28 prejudice. Dismissal. The claims in this action against Yakovenko are dismissed with -3131695355 FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Case No. 3: 17-cv-05961-HSG 1 13. Fees and Costs. Each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. 2 14. Retention of Jurisdiction. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce this Final 3 Judgment and Permanent Injunction. 4 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 DATED this 2nd day of January, 2018 6 Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4131695355 FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Case No. 3: 17-cv-05961-HSG
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
