“The aforesaid data is arranged in a systematic or methodical way, and is individually accessible by electronic or other means such that the database is a “database” within the meaning of Article 1(2) of the Database Directive (Directive 96/9/EC) (the Directive ) and Regulation 6 of the Copyright and Rights inDatabases Regulations 1997 (SI 1997/3032) (the Regulations ). It is the Claimants’ primary position that the aforesaid database is a single database, alternatively there are separate and individual databases comprising the data for each sport, each of which contain data which is arranged in a systematic or methodical way and which is individually accessible by electronic or other means. For convenience, the aforesaid database or databases are referred to hereinafter as the Database . Many sports leagues have appointed one of the Claimants as their official data partner.”
“The Claimants have each entered into [Data Rights Agreements] with numerous leagues, including basketball leagues which are members of FIBA (the Basketball Leagues ), football leagues which are members of the UEFA, CONMEBOL, FIFA and FAPL, FLL and the SPFL (through Football Dataco Limited) (the Football Leagues ), and volleyball leagues which are members of the FIVB (the Volleyball Leagues ). Pursuant to the Data Rights Agreements, the Claimants have obtained, collated, checked and entered into the Database, data relating to basketball, football and volleyball fixtures (as the case may be) for those leagues and continue to do so. Data so obtained, collated, checked and entered is and has been distributed to the leagues and Genius Sports’ customers for their respective purposes…”
“[Counterparty 1] hereby grants to [Genius Sports] the exclusive, worldwide, royalty free right to use, copy, store, distribute, publish, adapt, supply, sub-licence and/or exploit all data and statistics (including live scoring data and historical scoring data) collected using FIBA LiveStats software ( Official Data ).”
“(1) A declaration that database right subsists in the Database and that the Claimants are the owners and/or the exclusive licensees of that right; (2) Injunctions prohibiting the continuation of each of the wrongful acts aforesaid, including injunctions to restrain the Defendants…from infringing database right in the Database; (3) An order for delivery up and subsequent destruction (in the case of electronic materials by deletion) of all data, materials, documents or articles the use, retention or distribution of which by any of the Defendants might contravene the foregoing injunction; (4) An inquiry as to damages or, at the Claimants’ option, an account of profits; …”
“ Exercise of concurrent rights (1) Where an action for infringement of copyright brought by the copyright owner or an exclusive licensee relates (wholly or partly) to an infringement in respect of which they have concurrent rights of action, the copyright owner or, as the case may be, the exclusive licensee may not, without the leave of the court, proceed with the action unless the other is either joined as a plaintiff or added as a defendant. (2) A copyright owner or exclusive licensee who is added as a defendant in pursuance of subsection (1) is not liable for any costs in the action unless he takes part in the proceedings. …”
“Amended Annex 2 to the [Amended Particulars of Claim] lists over 220 [Data Rights Agreements] which are relevant to these proceedings. It is plainly not sensible, proportionate, nor realistic to join each and every counterparty as an additional party, and that would waste both sides’ legal costs and considerable court time. The Claimants therefore consider that a proportionate and sensible approach would be to join to the [proceedings] a selection of counterparties as representative parties…”
“(38) Whereas the increasing use of digital recording technology exposes the database maker to the risk that the contents of his database may be copied and rearranged electronically, without his authorisation, to produce a database of identical content which, however, does not infringe any copyright in the arrangement of his database; (39) Whereas, in addition to aiming to protect the copyright in the original selection or arrangement of the contents of the database, this Directive seeks to safeguard the position of makers of databases against misappropriation of the results of the financial and professional investment made in obtaining and collection the contents by protecting the whole or substantial parts of a database against certain acts by a user or competitor; (40) Whereas the object of this sui generis right is to ensure protection of any investment in obtaining, verifying or presenting the contents of a database for the limited duration of the right; whereas such investment may consist in the deployment of financial resources and/or the expending of time, effort and energy;…”
“(1) Where a claimant claims a remedy to which some other person is jointly entitled with him, all persons jointly entitled to the remedy must be parties unless the court orders otherwise. (2) If any person does not agree to be a claimant, he must be made a defendant, unless the court orders otherwise.”
“The old rule in the Court of Chancery was very simple and perfectly well understood. Under the old practice, the Court required the presence of all parties interested in the matter in suit, in order that a final end might be made of the controversy. But when the parties were so numerous that you never could “come at justice”, to use an expression in one of the older cases, if everybody interested was made a party, the rule was not allowed to stand in the way. It was originally a rule of convenience: for the sake of convenience, it was relaxed. Given a common interest and a common grievance, a representative suit was in order if the relief sought was in its nature beneficial to all whom the plaintiff proposed to represent.”
“On a true construction of the Directive, any leagues that were not at the material time a qualifying body corporate under Art. 11 (“the Non-EEA Leagues”) could not be the beneficiary of the protection conferred by database right. Accordingly, any assignment of database right to the Non-EEA Leagues would either result in that right being extinguished, or result in the Data Rights Agreements being void for mistake. As to the latter, if the parties purported to assign the protection conferred by database right to any Non-EEA League, those parties could only have done so in the belief that Non-EEA Leagues could benefit from the protection conferred by database right under the Directive. Such belief (that Non-EEA Leagues could benefit from the protection conferred by database right under the Directive) was (i) false for the reasons set out above at paragraphs 29A and 29B, (ii) one that went to the root of the contract, (iii) such as to make the performance of the contract (and in particular the purported assignment) impossible, and (iv) such as to amount to a common mistake of law which would render the Data Rights Agreement void accordingly. In the premises, if the construction of the Data Rights Agreements was such that there was an assignment of database rights to the Non-EEA Leagues, the Data Rights Agreements entered into with Non-EEA Leagues would be void. It is averred that this (namely, the right being extinguished or the Data Rights Agreement being void) was not the intention of the parties. In the premises, on a proper interpretation of the Data Rights Agreements there was no assignment of any database rights to the Non-EEA Leagues.”