Context:
- In July, Sony filed a complaint in the Northern District of California seeking a preliminary injunction against Tencent and some of its subsidiaries, alleging that the upcoming Light of Motiram game infringes on Sony’s copyrights and trademarks in its Horizon series, particularly Horizon Zero Dawn (August 12, 2025 Bristows article).
- The case was originally assigned to Judge Joseph Spero, but reassigned to a higher-ranking judge: United States District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, well-known by the gamer community because of her 2023 decision to deny the Federal Trade Commission an injunction against Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard, a decision upheld by the appeals court (May 7, 2025 games fray article).
- Last month, Tencent brought a motion to dismiss Sony’s complaint, arguing that it’s an attempt to monopolize old ideas and elements common to many games (September 18, 2025 games fray article). As we noted, the hurdle for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss is low, though it is not inconceivable that the court may require Sony to shore up one or more parts of its complaint.
What’s new: Yesterday (October 15, 2025), Sony filed its opposition to Tencent’s motion to dismiss. In a very well-crafted brief, Sony explains why the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has jurisdiction over all of the Tencent entities in question, including Cayman Islands-based Tencent Holdings, pointing to a complaint of nine years ago in which Tencent Holdings itself claimed to have an office in that district (in Palo Alto, to be precise). Sony argues that it cannot be expected to see through an opaque and complex corporate structure to the extent that it would have to specify precisely the ways in which the different defendant entities are involved with the Light of Motiram project, given that they are all part of one corporate group. Sony furthermore argues that the court should not attach weight to the fact that Tencent changed the announced release date of Light of Motiram to late 2027 after Sony’s lawsuit. Sony argues that Tencent’s pre-release promotional activities have caused and continue to cause harm, and that a preliminary injunction is therefore still needed, also because even a late-2027 release would be before a decision following a full trial would be made. With respect to the alleged trademark infringements, Sony argues that the Aloy character is a key identifier not only of Horizon Zero Dawn but even of Sony Interactive Entertainment as a whole.
Direct impact: Some of Sony’s arguments are pretty good, particularly on the question of whether Tencent Holdings was resaonably named as a defendant. On copyright infringement, the complaint’s allegations are probably sufficient to go ahead, which does not mean that Sony will necessarily succeed, but just that an outright dismissal at this early stage would be too strict. In order for Sony to have a trademark case, it must plead that consumer are confused about the origin of the product, and it actually looks like gamers know very well that Light of Motiram is not a Sony title and that its huntress character is not Aloy. Here, however, Sony may also be able to just meet the low standard at this procedural stage, and Tencent could still defeat the accusations later. Even though Tencent’s late-2027 release date is not a basis for dismissal of the complaint, Judge Corley will probably not treat this case as extremely urgent. Her court is one of the busiest in the United States.
Wider ramifications: It could be that Sony’s objective is to pressure Tencent to make Light of Motiram and its tribal huntress character more distinguishable from Horizon Zero Dawn and Aloy than it would in the absence of this litigation. Sony could lose the lawsuit, yet make an impact on a competitor’s behavior. Apple pursued a similar objective in the early 2010s when it enforced its design rights on rectangular portable devices with rounded corners and certain other elements (in an oversimplified form, called “rounded corners” design patents) against Samsung and even some small companies in different parts of the world. Apart from one case in the Northern District of California that turned out highly profitable (billion-dollar verdict), Apple lost. A UK judge even accused Apple of having made bad-faith allegations in public and ordered it to contradict former statements. But Samsung and other Android device makers definitely made an effort to reduce the degree of visual similarity between their products and the iPhone or iPad.
Here’s Sony’s opposition brief:
It reiterates some of the arguments made in the original complaint, but that is necessary. A complainant can’t cure any deficiencies of a complaint through its opposition brief. It must show that the complaint itself already stated what had to be said. Otherwise it may have to amend its complaint. At the end of this opposition brief, Sony’s lawyers request leave to amend the complaint for the “unlikely” event that Judge Corley considers the current one insufficient.
It is unlikely that Judge Corley would consider each of Tencent’s arguments for dismissal meritorious. The part about jurisdiction over Tencent Holdings (a Cayman Islands company) is probably a non-issue now for Sony. Its lawyers present a November 2016 complaint that Tencent Holdings LLC itself brought in this district, arguing in para. 10 that it “has tens of thousands of employees in various countries, with an office in Palo Alto, California” (which is formally a Tencent America office, and also used by Proxima Beta, another defendant to Sony’s complaint):
The part that appears weakest is the one concerning trademarks. Sony argues that the Aloy character is like a trademark, and it has a point that a video game character’s appearance is not as static as that of the Brawny Man (a fictional lumberjack used in paper towel promotions). But it shouldn’t be too difficult for Tencent either to defend the Light of Motiram huntress in her current form or to just make some changes that enable Tencent to keep clear of trademark infringement.
If Sony had to amend the complaint, that would cause further delay. But even if not, it is noticeable that Sony has been forced to modify its argument for why this case should be treated as urgent. It now argues with the pre-release promotions that Tencent has done, but it can’t suggest to the court that the “infringing” (as Sony calls it) game’s release is around the corner. Two years is a lot of time, though it’s not a lot of U.S. federal lawsuits.
Judge Corley may disagree with Sony that a preliminary injunction is needed, and suggest taking the case to trial
Sony argues that this case would not be resolved before the announced late-2027 release of Light of Motiram, and it says so because it wants to convince Judge Corley that it needs a preliminary injunction. But Judge Corley won’t necessarily agree.
According to Lex Machine, copyright cases in that district went from filing to trial in approximately 22 months in the 2017-2022 period. More recent numbers are not available, but this is probably still a realistic estimate. For all civil cases in the district, the most recent data is from 2023 and shows a 26-month median time to trial.
Unless Judge Corley feels that Tencent’s pre-release promotional activities warrant a preliminary injunction, she could simply schedule a trial for the second half of 2027. In that case, she could decide on a potential injunction after a full trial.
The next step is for Tencent to file a reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss. Judge Corley will robably hold a hearing on the motion to dismiss. The hearing date is December 2, 2025.