IP
Curtain Call on Utherverse’s Patent Claim Against Epic Games in Fortnite Concert Case
Table of Contents
Epic Games secured a major win in court, beating a USD 32.5 million lawsuit over their virtual concerts in the Fortnite universe. On May 19, 2025, a Seattle federal jury found that Epic didn’t infringe patented technology when they hosted virtual concerts with Travis Scott and Ariana Grande in Fortnite.
This verdict is significant for the gaming industry because it demonstrates how courts may approach intellectual property disputes in virtual worlds and provides guidance for future metaverse litigation.
Epic’s Global Concerts
Epic Games was a pioneer when they started producing virtual concerts in Fortnite, showcasing some of the most popular music artists performing in the world. The Travis Scott concert in 2020 attracted over 27 million players watching him perform as a digital avatar. The Ariana Grande concert in 2021 was equally impressive – securing an estimated USD 20 million from the 3 day event.
Both concerts generated millions in revenue for Epic Games through merchandise and in-game purchases. To handle the global demand, Epic ran multiple shows over several days so players in different time zones could attend. This element (pre-recorded concerts being replayed) became crucial to the legal dispute.
The Legal Challenge: Patent Infringement Claims
In June 2021, Utherverse Gaming sued Epic, claiming Epic infringed U.S. Patent No. 9,724,605, titled “Method, System and Apparatus of Recording and Playing Back an Experience in a Virtual Worlds System.” This patent covers technology for handling virtual events and replaying virtual experiences.
Utherverse argued that Epic used their patented methods for managing online traffic and replaying virtual events without permission. They sought USD 32.5 million in damages -15% of Epic’s estimated revenue made from the concerts.
From a legal standpoint, Utherverse had to prove patent infringement under two possible theories: direct infringement (where every element of a patent claim is present in the accused product) OR under the doctrine of equivalents (where a product performs substantially the same function in the same way to achieve the same result).
The central legal question was whether Epic’s concerts constituted “replays” of recorded virtual experiences as covered by Utherverse’s patent, or whether Epic’s concerts were altogether something fundamentally different.
The Legal Song and Dance
Epic, represented by Morrison & Foerster, presented a sophisticated multi-part defense that challenged both infringement and patent validity.
Non-Infringement Arguments: Epic’s main argument was that their virtual concerts weren’t “replays” at all but original live performances. Even though the music was pre-recorded and artists appeared as digital avatars, Epic argued the actual concerts were live events happening in real-time. Players had to attend at specific scheduled times with no option to watch later, making them fundamentally different from recorded virtual experiences covered by the patent.
Epic emphasized that “there was no experience in a virtual environment until the animations were played as part of the concerts,” meaning they didn’t record existing virtual events but instead created original “live” content specifically for the virtual environment.
Patent Invalidity Claims: Epic also challenged the patent’s validity on several legal grounds. They argued the patent was obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, meaning the claimed invention would have been obvious to someone skilled in the field when the patent was filed in 2014. They cited prior art including StarCraft II and various Sony patents to show similar technology already existed.
Epic also challenged the patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101, arguing that Utherverse’s patent covered abstract ideas without sufficient inventive concepts – essentially claiming the patent tried to monopolize basic concepts of virtual world technology.
For Utherverse to win, they needed to prove infringement more likely than not that had occurred under the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. While a lower burden than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, this burden of proof still requires convincing evidence.
The Jury Calls It A Wrap
The jury was tasked with analyzing whether Epic’s technology fell within the scope of Utherverse’s patent claims by comparing the technical elements of each patent claim to Epic’s actual implementation in Fortnite concerts. After over six hours of deliberation, the jury made several important legal determinations:
- No Infringement: The jury found Epic didn’t infringe any of the three patent claims at issue. This suggests they accepted Epic’s argument that virtual concerts were original live performances rather than replays of recorded virtual experiences, placing Epic’s technology outside the patent’s scope.
- Limited Patent Invalidity: While the jury largely rejected Epic’s invalidity arguments, they did find one claim invalid for covering technology that would have been routine and conventional to someone skilled in the art in 2014. This engages with Section 101 patent eligibility requirements and the Alice/Mayo framework for determining what constitutes patentable subject matter.
- The partial invalidity finding is significant because it shows the jury recognized some aspects of Utherverse’s patent covered basic virtual world concepts that shouldn’t be monopolized.
Industry Implications
This verdict establishes important legal precedent for virtual world patent disputes. The court’s willingness to distinguish between “live” virtual performances and “recorded” virtual experiences creates a framework for analyzing similar cases involving interactive digital content or more commonly known as “livestreams.”
The decision provides legal clarity on how traditional patent law applies to emerging technologies. It suggests courts will carefully examine the technical implementation details rather than applying broad patent claims to entire categories of virtual world functionality.
For patent law generally, this case demonstrates how existing legal frameworks adapt to new technologies. The jury’s analysis of what differentiates a “replay” versus a “live performance” in virtual environments shows that courts are developing a more sophisticated and nuanced understanding of digital technologies.
Impact on Gaming and Esports Law
From a gaming law perspective, Epic’s victory protects innovation in virtual entertainment. A win for Utherverse could have encouraged more patent assertion entities to target gaming companies with broad virtual world patents, potentially stifling technological advancement.
For esports specifically, this precedent is crucial as competitive gaming increasingly incorporates virtual reality elements. The decision provides legal protection for companies developing immersive tournament experiences and virtual venue technologies. Tournaments are now more likely to be broadcast without fear of being challenged by weak patent infringement claims.
The case also reinforces that patent holders can’t simply claim ownership over fundamental aspects of virtual world technology without showing genuine innovation.
