Infernal Technology v. Take-Two Interactive — Dismissed With Prejudice After 1,584 Days
Infernal Technology LLC and Terminal Reality Inc. sued Take-Two Interactive Software over two lighting-technology patents, targeting 18 major game titles including GTA V and Red Dead Redemption 2. After more than four years of litigation in the Southern District of New York, the parties stipulated to dismissal with prejudice — each side bearing its own costs.
Four-year lighting patent dispute against GTA and Red Dead publisher ends with finality
Filed in October 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, this case pitted Infernal Technology LLC and Terminal Reality Inc. against Take-Two Interactive Software — publisher of some of the most commercially successful video game franchises of the past decade. At the heart of the dispute were two patents, US6362822B1 and US7061488B2, covering real-time lighting and rendering technology. Plaintiffs alleged that 18 Take-Two titles, spanning the BioShock, Grand Theft Auto, Red Dead Redemption, Mafia, and NBA 2K franchises, infringed those patents.
The case concluded on February 9, 2024, when both parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). All claims were dismissed with prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs are permanently barred from bringing the same patent claims against Take-Two. Notably, the stipulation provided that each party would bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees — a cost-neutral resolution that is consistent with a negotiated settlement but leaves no public record of financial terms.
A duration of 1,584 days — roughly four years and four months — suggests the dispute navigated substantial pretrial activity, likely including claim construction, discovery, and potentially inter partes proceedings, before the parties reached resolution. The with-prejudice dismissal offers Take-Two certainty that these specific patent claims cannot be reasserted. What drove the timing of resolution, and whether any licensing arrangement accompanied the dismissal, remains entirely absent from the public record.
Filing to resolution in 1584 days
1,584 days — over 4 years of active litigation before resolution
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice — what it means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal explained
A dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires a signed stipulation from all parties who have appeared. It is a consensual mechanism — neither party is ordered out by the court. This route is typically chosen when parties have reached some form of resolution and want a clean, agreed exit from litigation. The involvement of both sides signals a negotiated endpoint rather than a unilateral withdrawal.
Consensual exit mechanismWith prejudice bars Infernal Technology from refiling
A with-prejudice dismissal is final and operates as a judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes. Infernal Technology LLC and Terminal Reality Inc. cannot refile these patent infringement claims against Take-Two based on US6362822B1 or US7061488B2 for the same accused products and conduct. This provides Take-Two with durable legal certainty — a meaningful outcome given the breadth of the 18 titles originally accused.
Permanent bar on re-litigationEach side absorbs its own legal costs
The stipulation expressly provides that each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. In U.S. patent litigation, this is a common feature of negotiated resolutions and differs from an exceptional-case fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement is commercially neutral and neither confirms nor implies fault or weakness on either side’s litigation position.
Cost-neutral resolutionPrivate terms likely — public record is silent on financials
The combination of a with-prejudice dismissal, mutual cost-bearing, and a four-year litigation timeline is consistent with — though does not confirm — a confidential licensing or settlement agreement reached in parallel with the stipulation. Parties frequently structure resolutions this way to keep financial terms off the public docket. No damages figure, royalty rate, or licensing term appears in the public record for this case.
Confidential terms likelyFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Infernal Technology, LLC | Company | Video game tech IP holding company — holder of US6362822B1 and US7061488B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. | Company | Take-Two Interactive Software — publisher of GTA, Red Dead Redemption, NBA 2K franchisesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alex Gregg Patchen | Attorney | Counsel for Infernal Technology, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher Michael Joe | Attorney | Counsel for Infernal Technology, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David Guerrero Liston | Attorney | Counsel for Infernal Technology, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Eric William Buether | Attorney | Counsel for Infernal Technology, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kenneth Paul Kula | Attorney | Counsel for Infernal Technology, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew Paul Harper | Attorney | Counsel for Infernal Technology, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Clayton Pomeroy | Attorney | Counsel for Infernal Technology, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael William Doell | Attorney | Counsel for Infernal Technology, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Thomas Joseph Gohn | Attorney | Counsel for Infernal Technology, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher James Gaspar | Attorney | Counsel for Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nathaniel Thomas Browand | Attorney | Counsel for Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge / | Chief Judge | New York Southern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The stipulation’s language — ‘dismissing all claims asserted by Plaintiffs against Defendant WITH PREJUDICE, with each party to bear its own costs’ — is unambiguous in its finality. The with-prejudice designation forecloses any future assertion of the same claims, while the mutual cost provision avoids any implication of a prevailing party. The breadth of the original complaint (18 titles) against the clean exit suggests the parties reached a privately negotiated resolution, the terms of which are not part of the court record.
US6362822B1 & US7061488B2 — Real-time lighting and rendering technology
US6362822B1 (application no. US09/268078) and US7061488B2 (application no. US10/010776) are both attributed to the lineage of Terminal Reality Inc., a Dallas-based game engine developer active from the 1990s through the early 2010s. The patents relate to real-time lighting computation and rendering techniques for interactive 3D graphics environments — core technical capabilities that underpin visual fidelity in AAA video games. Their application dates place them at the cusp of real-time 3D rendering’s commercial maturation, giving them potentially broad claim scope relative to modern implementations.
The strategic significance of these patents lies in the ubiquity of the underlying technology. Real-time dynamic lighting is a foundational feature of virtually every modern AAA game engine — meaning the asserted claims, if broad enough, could read on a wide range of products from multiple publishers. Infernal Technology’s decision to assert these patents against 18 Take-Two titles across six franchises underscores their perceived commercial leverage. For competitors of Take-Two and for studios relying on similar rendering pipelines, these patents represent a live risk vector even after this particular case has concluded with prejudice.
Should your studio run an FTO against US6362822B1 and US7061488B2?
Any game developer or publisher shipping titles that implement real-time dynamic lighting, shadow rendering, or advanced illumination pipelines should consider a freedom-to-operate review against these patents. The claims were asserted against products ranging from open-world titles to sports games and shooters — suggesting plaintiffs believed the technology reads broadly across genres and engine types. Licensing arrangements in the wake of a confidential settlement may also affect what rights are available to third parties.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US6362822B1 and US7061488B2 against your product’s technical architecture, surface the full patent family, identify cited prior art that may inform invalidity positions, and flag continuation or continuation-in-part applications that could extend the enforcement window. Setting up claim-level monitoring through Eureka ensures your IP and R&D teams receive early warning if related patents enter assertion proceedings — giving you time to design around or prepare a defensive response.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US6362822B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent litigation in video game rendering and real-time graphics technology
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the video game IP and rendering technology landscape
Two legacy rendering patents pursued across 18 AAA titles for over four years — the strategic implications extend well beyond Take-Two.
Legacy game engine patents remain an active enforcement vector
Terminal Reality developed the Infernal Engine in the early 2000s. This case demonstrates that foundational rendering and lighting patents from that era retain enforceable scope against modern AAA titles. Studios and publishers using third-party or proprietary engines should audit their rendering pipelines against legacy IP, particularly patents originating from engine developers of that generation.
Breadth of accused titles signals portfolio-level assertion strategy
Targeting 18 titles across six franchises — BioShock, GTA, Red Dead Redemption, Mafia, Max Payne, and sports titles — reflects a deliberate portfolio-wide assertion. This approach maximises damages exposure and increases settlement pressure. Defendants facing similarly broad accusations should evaluate claim scope carefully per title rather than treating all accused products as equivalent.
Infernal v Take-Two — key questions answered
Plaintiffs asserted two patents: US6362822B1 and US7061488B2. Both relate to real-time lighting and rendering technology for interactive 3D graphics environments and are attributed to Terminal Reality Inc.’s engine development work. The patents were asserted against 18 Take-Two titles across six major franchises.
The parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), agreeing to dismiss all claims with prejudice. A with-prejudice dismissal is final — Infernal Technology cannot refile the same claims against Take-Two. The public record does not disclose what drove the decision or whether a confidential settlement accompanied the stipulation.
18 titles were accused, including BioShock 2, BioShock Infinite, BioShock: The Collection, Grand Theft Auto IV, Grand Theft Auto V, LA Noire, Mafia II, Mafia III, Max Payne 3, NBA 2K18, NBA 2K19, Red Dead Redemption, Red Dead Redemption 2, Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare, The Darkness II, WWE 2K18, WWE 2K19, and BioShock 2: Minerva’s Den.
The case lasted 1,584 days — filed October 9, 2019 and closed February 9, 2024, a span of approximately four years and four months. This duration is consistent with cases that proceed through substantive pretrial activity including discovery and likely claim construction before reaching resolution.
Plaintiffs were represented by Buether Joe & Counselors LLC, Carter Arnett PLLC, Liston Abramson LLP, and McGuireWoods LLP, with attorneys including Eric Buether and Christopher Joe among others. Take-Two was represented by Milbank LLP, with Christopher Gaspar and Nathaniel Browand listed as defense counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.