By: Esha Kher
Epic’s Virtual Concerts
Epic Games has successfully defended itself against a $32.5 million patent infringement lawsuit over its groundbreaking Fortnite concerts featuring artists like Travis Scott and Ariana Grande. On May 19, 2025, a federal jury in the Western District of Washington found that Epic did not infringe a patent held by Utherverse Gaming LLC, a company licensing technology for virtual environments. The verdict, delivered after over six hours of deliberation, ended a high-profile trial that raised critical questions about intellectual property in the metaverse.
Epic Games revolutionized in-game experiences with Fortnite concerts—live events where real artists perform as digital avatars in evolving virtual environments. These concerts exemplify the metaverse’s core: a shared, persistent digital space for interactive, social experiences that go beyond traditional gaming. In 2020, pop icon Travis Scott drew over 27 million players to his in-game concert, setting new records for Fortnite. The following year, Ariana Grande headlined the “Rift Tour,” a narrative-driven concert experience that lifted players into a dreamlike, cloudscape environment. These events not only attracted millions of viewers but also generated tens of millions of dollars through merchandise sales and in-game purchases. To meet this demand, Epic looped and replayed each concert over several days.
Utherverse claimed that Epic has utilized three of their patents concerning “multi-instance, multi-user animation platforms” to host repeatable, large scale events for multitudes of participants. However, the jury sided with Epic, reinforcing the difficulty of applying traditional patent frameworks to dynamic, interactive digital performances.
The Lawsuit: Does Replay Mean Infringement?
In June 2021, Utherverse sued Epic Games, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,724,605, which covers technology for “playing back recorded experiences in a virtual world system.” Utherverse claimed that Epic’s technology for managing massive online crowds and replaying events in Fortnite incorporated methods protected by this patent.
Utherverse alleged that its technology enabled Fortnite concerts to support millions of avatars without overwhelming network bandwidth. The company argued that Epic used similar methods without permission and did so intentionally.
Epic’s Defense: It is Innovation, Not Infringement
In response, Epic filed a counterclaim in January 2022 denying the allegations and asserting that it developed its concert technology independently using its own Unreal Engine software, which has existed since 1998. Epic argued that Utherverse’s patent covers technology for replaying past events—something that doesn’t apply to Fortnite’s concerts.
While the music was pre-recorded and performers appeared as animated 3D avatars, the concerts themselves were not recordings of prior events. Instead, they were pre-scripted, interactive shows that took place live at scheduled times. Players had to join during those windows, and there was no option to watch the events later, reinforcing that these were real-time experiences—not replays.
Epic’s attorneys further contended that Utherverse’s patent was overly broad, and invalid because the underlying concepts were well-known to professionals in the field at the time the Utherverse patent application was submitted in 2014. The video game publisher has argued in its defense that the patent is invalid because the concepts would’ve been considered obvious, abstract, and conventional to a professional in the field when the patent was sought. Finally, Epic accused Utherverse of contributing nothing to Fortnite’s development while attempting to capitalize on the game’s commercial success.
The Verdict: No Infringement
The jury concluded that Utherverse failed to meet its burden of proof under the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, which requires showing that it is more likely than not that infringement occurred. To succeed on its infringement claims, Utherverse needed to prove that Epic’s technology fell within the scope of at least one valid patent claim. Infringement can be established either through direct infringement—where every element of a claim is present in the accused product—or under the doctrine of equivalents, which applies when a product performs substantially the same function in the same way to achieve the same result. The jury found no infringement of any of the three patent claims at issue.
While the jury largely rejected Epic’s separate claim that the patent was invalid, they did find one claim—related to how avatar movement is constrained by virtual objects—to be based on routine and conventional technology, as would have been understood by a person skilled in the art in 2014. This part of the verdict engages with the legal standard for patent validity under § 101 of the Patent Act, specifically whether the patent claims involve an “inventive concept” beyond well-understood, routine, or conventional technology.
As a result, Utherverse was awarded no damages, and Epic Games emerged from the trial without liability. The verdict ultimately reflects the legal complexity of applying traditional patent law to novel, immersive digital experiences, particularly when distinguishing between live interactive events and replayed content in virtual worlds.
Conclusion
The jury’s verdict in Utherverse v. Epic is a landmark moment in the evolving relationship between intellectual property law and the virtual world. By rejecting Utherverse’s infringement claim, the decision highlights the challenges of applying traditional patent frameworks to immersive, real-time digital experiences. While Utherverse claimed its patent covered essential technology for replaying virtual events, the jury ultimately accepted Epic’s argument that its concerts were original, live performances, not reproductions of past gameplay.
This case highlights the growing tension between innovation and patent enforcement in the virtual world. A ruling in favor of Utherverse could have opened the floodgates for similar lawsuits targeting large platforms and game developers, potentially stifling creativity and experimentation in digital entertainment. As the virtual landscape continues to evolve, so too must the legal frameworks that balance innovation, ownership, and fair competition.
Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts 