|“||The Motion seeks the dismissal with prejudice of only three of the six counts alleged in the Counterclaim, those being the claims for: (a) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Count IV); Rescission (Count V); and, (c) Tortuous Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage (Count VI). Bethesda contends that these Counts fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Counterclaim also includes claims for relief for: (a) Breach of Contract of the Asset Purchase Agreement dated April 4, 2007 (the "APA," Count I); (b) Breach of Contract of the Trademark License Agreement dated April 4, 2007 (the "TLA," Count II); and, (c) Declatory Relief of the parties rights under the APA and TLA (Count III). The Motion does not seek to dismiss these Counts.||”|
Blant annet sier de at, selv om avtalen med Glutton Creeper Games angående Fallout d20 kan ha vært et brudd på Excluse Licensing Agreement fra 2004, gjelder avtalen deres enda, fordi Bethesda ikke klaget da Asset Purchase Agreement fra 2007 kom frem.
|“||The APA contains a scedule of pre-existing outbound licenses of the Fallout intellectual property entered into by Interplay. Bethesda received and reviewed the schedule as part of its due diligence before executing the APA. The APA provides that if Bethesda did not approve of the outbound licenses associated with the Fallout intellectual property, Bethesda could refuse to execute the APA without consequence. One of the outbound licenses was to Glutton Creeper Games for the creation of a Fallout pen-and-paper role playing game based on the Pre-Existing Fallout titles. Bethesda did not object to the Glutton Creeper Games license and proceeded to execute the APA even with actual knowledge of its existence. Thus, Bethesda accepted the Glutton Creeper Games license at the time it execute the APA. Whether the Glutton Creeper Games license may have inadvertently violated the previous Exclusive Licensing Agreement between Interplay and Bethesda is reelevant because the APA superceded and replaced the Exclusive Licensing Agreement in its entirety.||”|
Mens Bethesda påstår at APAen ikke lar Interplay gi rettighetene til digital distribusjon av Falloutspill som eksisterte før, til selskaper som GOG.com eller GameTap, sier Interplay at APAen ikke begrenser distribuering, eller krever at Bethesda skal godta Interplays distribusjonsavtaler.
Bethesda mener at loven i Maryland skal brukes i forhold til sine krav, mens Interplay mener at de skal bruke loven i Delaware på hele saken. Ifølge Interplay er APA sett på som et integrert dokument som ikke kan termineres uten at hele avtalen slettes, ifølge loven i Delaware. Dette ville gi rettighetene tilbake til Interplay.
For å oppsummere, er det dette Interplay mener:
|“|| Interplay has properly pled facts to support its claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (count iv)
Interplay has properly pled facts to support its claim for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage (count vi)Interplay has properly pled facts to support its claim for rescission (count v)