Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01267/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01267-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LILITH GAMES (SHANGHAI) CO. 

LTD., 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

UCOOL, INC. AND UCOOL LTD., 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 15-CV-01267-SC

ORDER DENYING PROPOSED 

PLAINTIFFS-IN-INTERVENTION'S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE 

 

Now before the Court is Proposed Plaintiffs-In-Intervention 

Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. ("Blizzard") and Valve Corporation's 

("Valve") (collectively "Proposed Intervenors") motion for leave to 

intervene. ECF No. 42 ("Mot."). Proposed Intervenors request 

leave to intervene as of right, or for permissive intervention in 

the alternative. Plaintiff Lilith Games ("Lilith") and Defendants 

uCool, Inc. and uCool LTD ("uCool") both oppose the motion. ECF 

Nos. 61 ("Lilith Opp'n"), 62 ("uCool Opp'n"). Pursuant to Civil 

Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter appropriate for 

disposition without oral argument. For the reasons set forth 

below, Plaintiffs' motion is DENIED. 

/// 

Case 5:15-cv-01267-LHK Document 93 Filed 08/17/15 Page 1 of 10
2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Lilith is a video game developer that released the 

game Dao Ta Chuan Qi (translated as "Sword and Tower")1

 in China in 

February 2014. Lilith claims to own the copyrights in Sword and 

Tower's computer software. Lilith also claims that it maintains 

the Sword and Tower source code as a trade secret. In March 2015, 

Lilith decided to release Sword and Tower in other countries 

including the United States, Japan, and certain European countries. 

Defendant uCool is a game marketer who published the game 

Heroes Charge in the United States in August 2014. 

Lilith filed its Second Amended Complaint on August 10, 2015. 

ECF No. 83 ("SAC"). In its first claim for relief, Lilith alleges 

that uCool unlawfully gained access to Lilith's copyrighted 

computer software code embodied in Sword and Tower and copied it 

into the source code embodied in Heroes Charge. Because Sword and 

Tower is not a United States work as defined in 17 U.S.C. Section 

101, Lilith brings its copyright claim under the Berne Convention, 

an international agreement governing copyright. In Lilith's second 

claim for relief, Lilith alleges that the Sword and Tower source 

code is also a trade secret and that uCool misappropriated that 

trade secret in violation of California's Uniform Trade Secrets 

Act, California Civil Code Section 3426. 

In support of their copyright and trade secret claims, 

Lilith's SAC includes circumstantial evidence of alleged source 

code copying. For example, Lilith claims that Heroes Charge 

 

1

 The game has also been referred to as Dota Legends (see ECF No. 

43-01 ¶ 2). Proposed Intervenors also allege that Lilith has 

created and distributed an English-language version of Sword and 

Tower known as Dot Arena. Mot. at 6. 

Case 5:15-cv-01267-LHK Document 93 Filed 08/17/15 Page 2 of 10
3 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

includes a portion of Lilith's source code that causes Lilith's 

copyright notice to appear at a certain point in the game. The SAC 

also includes screenshots illustrating some of the alleged visual 

similarities between the two games. 

Lilith has filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking 

to enjoin uCool from reproducing, copying, preparing any derivative 

works, and/or distributing Lilith's source code. The motion will 

turn, in large part, on expert analysis of the source code in Sword 

and Tower as compared to the source code in Heroes Charge. 

The instant motion to intervene was filed by Blizzard and 

Valve on May 29, 2015. Blizzard and Valve are American video game 

developers, holding copyrights in several successful games such as 

Warcraft III, World of Warcraft, Diablo III, and Dota 2. Their 

proposed complaint-in-intervention alleges that, in developing 

Sword and Tower and Heroes Charge, Lilith and uCool copied many of 

Blizzard and Valve's best-known characters. They also allege 

copying of "certain settings, terrain, background art," and other 

visual elements. Mot. at 7. Notably, however, Blizzard and Valve 

do not allege that Lilith or uCool copied their source code. 

The proposed complaint-in-intervention alleges claims of 

copyright infringement against both Lilith and uCool. It seeks 

preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' 

fees and costs, and other relief. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

A. Intervention as a Matter of Right 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) provides for 

intervention as a matter of right where the potential intervenor 

Case 5:15-cv-01267-LHK Document 93 Filed 08/17/15 Page 3 of 10
4 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

"claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is 

the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the 

action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's 

ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately 

represent that interest." The Ninth Circuit has summarized the 

requirements for intervention as of right under Rule 24(a)(2) as 

follows: 

(1) [T]he [applicant's] motion must be timely; (2) the 

applicant must have a 'significantly protectable' 

interest relating to the property or transaction which is 

the subject of the action; (3) the applicant must be so 

situated that the disposition of the action may as a 

practical matter impair or impede its ability to protect 

that interest; and (4) the applicant's interest must be 

inadequately represented by the parties to the action. 

Freedom from Religion Found. v. Geithner, 644 F.3d 836, 841 (9th 

Cir. 2011) (quoting California ex rel. Lockyer v. United States, 

450 F.3d 436, 440 (9th Cir. 2006)). Proposed intervenors must 

satisfy all four criteria; "[f]ailure to satisfy any one of the 

requirements is fatal to the application." Perry v. Proposition 8 

Official Proponents, 587 F.3d 947, 950 (9th Cir. 2009). In 

evaluating motions to intervene, "courts are guided primarily by 

practical and equitable considerations, and the requirements for 

intervention are broadly interpreted in favor of intervention." 

United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir. 

2004). "Courts are to take all well-pleaded, nonconclusory 

allegations in the motion to intervene, the proposed complaint or 

answer in intervention, and declarations supporting the motion as 

true absent sham, frivolity or other objections." Sw. Ctr. for 

Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 820 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Case 5:15-cv-01267-LHK Document 93 Filed 08/17/15 Page 4 of 10
5 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

B. Permissive Intervention 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)(1), "[o]n 

timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who . . . 

has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common 

question of law or fact." Permissive intervention "requires (1) an 

independent ground for jurisdiction; (2) a timely motion; and (3) a 

common question of law and fact between the movant's claim or 

defense and the main action." Freedom from Religion Found., 644 

F.3d at 843 (quoting Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 

F.3d 470, 473 (9th Cir. 1992)). "Even if an applicant satisfies 

those threshold requirements," however, "the district court has 

discretion to deny permissive intervention." Donnelly, 159 F.3d at 

412. "In exercising its discretion, the court must consider 

whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the 

adjudication of the original parties' rights." Fed. R. Civ. P. 

24(b)(3). "[T]he court may also consider other factors in the 

exercise of its discretion, including 'the nature and extent of the 

intervenors' interest' and 'whether the intervenors' interests are 

adequately represented by other parties." Perry, 587 F.3d at 955 

(quoting Spangler v. Pasadena City Bd. of Educ., 552 F.2d 1326, 

1329 (9th Cir. 1977)). 

III. DISCUSSION 

A. Intervention as a Matter of Right 

1. Timeliness 

A court considers three criteria in determining whether a 

motion to intervene is timely: "(1) the stage of the proceeding; 

(2) the prejudice to other parties; and (3) the reason for and 

Case 5:15-cv-01267-LHK Document 93 Filed 08/17/15 Page 5 of 10
6 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

length of [any] delay [in moving to intervene]." United States v. 

Oregon, 745 F.2d 550, 552 (9th Cir. 1984). 

 Lilith and uCool acknowledge that this action is still in its 

early stages. They argue that the motion to intervene is 

nevertheless untimely because "it would be prejudicial to the 

Parties to the underlying Action to allow Proposed Intervenors to 

inject new parties, claims, and evidence into this matter." Lilith 

Opp'n at 8. Those concerns, however, have little to do with 

whether the instant motion is timely. In order to deny a motion to 

intervene on the basis of timeliness, the prejudice to the other 

parties must be "because of the passage of time." See United 

States v. Oregon, 745 F.2d at 553. Because this action is still in 

its infancy, Lilith and uCool would not be prejudiced. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that the motion to intervene is 

timely. 

2. Significant Protectable Interest and Impairment of 

that Interest 

An applicant has a "significant protectable interest" in an 

action if (1) it asserts an interest that is protected under some 

law, and (2) there is a "relationship" between its legally 

protected interest and the plaintiff's claims. Northwest Forest 

Resource Council v. Glickman, 82 F.3d 825, 837 (9th Cir. 1996). 

"An applicant generally satisfies the 'relationship' requirement 

only if the resolution of the plaintiff's claims actually will 

affect the applicant." Donnelly v. Glickman, 159 F.3d 405, 409-10 

(9th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). In addition, an applicant to 

intervene must be "so situated that disposing of the action may as 

a practical matter impair or impede" its ability to protect its 

Case 5:15-cv-01267-LHK Document 93 Filed 08/17/15 Page 6 of 10
7 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

interest. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). A possible stare decisis 

effect in the event that factual and legal determinations are 

reviewed on appeal "is an important consideration in determining 

the extent to which an applicant's interest may be impaired." 

United States v. State of Oregon, 839 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir. 

1988). 

The Proposed Intervenors' interest in their alleged copyrights 

in certain visual elements of their games, while legally 

protectable, is not related to the Plaintiff's claims. Lilith 

alleges that uCool copied its source code –- a series of 

alphanumeric instructions read by a computer to achieve a 

particular operation. The Proposed Intervenors, however, do not 

claim an interest in Lilith's source code. Instead, the proposed 

complaint-in-intervention alleges that Lilith and uCool copied 

"certain settings, terrain, background art," and other visual 

elements. Mot. at 7. Although the visual elements of a video game 

are generated by source code, copyrighted source code is a 

protectable literary work distinct from and responsible for much 

more than the generation of visual elements in a game. Further, 

any given visual element can be generated by different variations 

of source code. Thus, the resolution of Lilith's suit relating to 

its source code will not affect the Proposed Intervenors. In 

particular, if the Court found that Lilith had a valid copyright in 

portions of its source code, the Proposed Intervenors could still 

pursue an action against Lilith and uCool insofar as Sword and 

Tower and Heroes Charge contain infringing visual elements. 

For these reasons, the Proposed Intervenors do not have a 

significant protectable interest related to the Plaintiff's claims. 

Case 5:15-cv-01267-LHK Document 93 Filed 08/17/15 Page 7 of 10
8 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

Even if they did, that interest would not be impaired by the 

outcome of this action. Accordingly, Proposed Intervenors' request 

for intervention as of right is DENIED. 

3. Adequacy of Representation 

Courts consider three factors when assessing whether a present 

party will adequately represent the interests of an applicant for 

intervention: 

(1) whether the interest of a present party is such that 

it will undoubtedly make all of a proposed intervenor's 

arguments; (2) whether the present party is capable and 

willing to make such arguments; and (3) whether a 

proposed intervenor would offer any necessary elements to 

the proceeding that other parties would neglect. 

Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1086 (9th Cir. 2003). 

 The proposed complaint-in-intervention asserts copyright 

infringement claims against both the Plaintiff and the Defendant. 

Thus, neither party can adequately represent the interests of the 

Proposed Intervenors. 

B. Permissive Intervention 

Lilith and uCool do not dispute that the Proposed Intervenors 

meet the three threshold requirements for permissive intervention. 

They argue, however, that the Court should deny permissive 

intervention because it would prejudice their ability to pursue and 

defend against the claims in this action. See UMG Recordings, Inc. 

v. Bertelsmann AG, 222 F.R.D. 408, 415 (N.D.Cal. 2004) ("[T]he 

possibility of prejudice to the original parties is in fact the 

'principal consideration' when deciding a motion to intervene."). 

Specifically, the parties argue that "[g]iven the distinct subject 

matter between Lilith's claim and Proposed Intervenors' claims, 

Lilith [and uCool] will have to defend against those claims with 

Case 5:15-cv-01267-LHK Document 93 Filed 08/17/15 Page 8 of 10
9 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

different evidence and witnesses than will be at issue in Lilith's 

claim against uCool." Lilith Opp'n at 10. 

The Court agrees that intervention will unduly delay and 

prejudice the adjudication of the original parties' case. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3). The inclusion of the Proposed Intervenors' 

additional claims would "necessitate the consideration of 

extraneous legal and factual issues that [Plaintiff's] lawsuit 

would not otherwise invoke," including questions relating to the 

artistic development of characters, settings, terrain, background 

art, and other visual elements. UMG Recordings, Inc., 222 F.R.D. 

at 414. "Such allegations would divert time and resources from the 

principal thrust of [Plaintiffs'] lawsuit and entangle the legal 

and factual issues involved therein within a web that is not of the 

original parties' making." Id. at 415; see also Hanni v. Am. 

Airlines, Inc., No. 08-cv-00732-CW, 2010 WL 289297, at *7 (N.D. 

Cal. 2010) (concluding that judicial economy would suffer with the 

addition of a proposed intervenor's new claims and issues because 

intervention would require additional discovery, push back 

deadlines, and delay the resolution of the existing case). What is 

more, the Proposed Intervenors have the option to bring a separate 

action against Lilith and uCool. "While hardly dispositive, [a 

prospective intervenor's] ability to pursue its claims through an 

alternative mechanism without any prejudice to its own rights is 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 5:15-cv-01267-LHK Document 93 Filed 08/17/15 Page 9 of 10
10 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

significant in the context of a motion to intervene brought by that 

party." UMG Recordings, 222 F.R.D. at 415. 

For these reasons, the Court DENIES the Proposed Intervenors' 

request for permissive intervention. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to intervene is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 Dated: August 17, 2015 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:15-cv-01267-LHK Document 93 Filed 08/17/15 Page 10 of 10