Watchmen Lawsuit Pt. 4: Warner Bros. On The Ropes

On April 7, 2008, Warner Brothers filed a motion to dismiss Claims One (copyright infringement) and Two (interference with contract) of Fox’s original complaint; Fox filed its opposition to the motion on April 21, 2008. On August 13, 2008, Hon. Gary Allen Feess entered an order denying Warner Brothers’ motion to dismiss. Why? To prove interference with contract, Fox needs to show: 1) the existence of a valid contract between Fox and Lawrence Gordon Inc, 2) Warner Brothers knowledge of the contract, 3) intentional acts designed to induce a breach or to disrupt the contractual relationship, 4) actual breach or disruption of the contractual relationship, and 5) resulting damage. Based on Fox’s complaint and evidence as presented in its extensive exhibits, the court found that Fox's "allegations establish the existence of an agreement, Warner Brothers’ knowledge of the agreement, Warner Brothers’ intentional acts that were designed to, and in fact did, disrupt the relationship between Fox and Gordon, with resulting harm. That is sufficient to state a claim for interference with contract."

Similarly, the court found that Fox's complaint “adequately states a claim for copyright infringement even if Fox does not hold the entire bundle of rights.” To clarify, go back to the facts. Fox alleges that Gordon paid no monies in order to execute the turnaround agreement with Fox. This would mean that, according to the terms of the settlement agreement, Fox maintained distribution rights in the Watchmen movie because Gordon had no rights to convey to WB in the first place. As a result, any subsequent production by WB would constitute copyright infringement.