Here, by contrast, although Plaintiffs allege that “dozens of characters from ‘Heroes Charge’ are derived from and substantially similar to Blizzard and Valve’s characters,” they plead no facts demonstrating that any one of the dozens of characters are plausibly copyrightable.
Plaintiffs cite three examples of uCool’s characters with allegedly infringing portraits: uCool’s anthropomorphized panda warrior, allegedly derived from Blizzard’s “Chen Stormstout”; uCool’s “Savage One,” allegedly derived from Blizzard’s Naga warrior; and “Emberstar,” allegedly derived from Dota 2’s character “Lima.”
In October 2015, uCool, acting for itself and not its co-defendant, filed this motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6) and for a more definite statement under FRCP 12(e).
Plaintiffs cite three examples of uCool’s characters with allegedly infringing portraits: uCool’s anthropomorphized panda warrior, allegedly derived from Blizzard’s “Chen Stormstout”; uCool’s “Savage One,” allegedly derived from Blizzard’s Naga warrior; and “Emberstar,” allegedly derived from Dota 2’s character “Lima.”
但是在美国的版权法律中，虚拟的角色形象一般是没办法受版权保护的，文件中亦有提及：“Characters are not ordinarily entitled to copyright protection.”作为一个判例法国家，之前美国第九巡回上诉法院在1978年的Halicki Films诉Sanderson Sales and Marketing一案中认定，如果角色具有“特别创造性”就可以获得版权保护，DC漫画诉Towle一案也是依此判例判决，DC漫画提供的证据也证明了蝙蝠车“具有特别创造性”并且具有“持续的特征和特色”。所以这个“特别创造性”需要很严密的证据，你主张别人侵犯了你的人物版权，那么需要有证据证实这个形象就是你第一个设计的，具有独一无二的持续特征，需要足够的证据。
目前的流程应该是这个阶段：在uCool提出请求后，法院审理原告方的材料，认为原告的证据材料不足，于是驳回诉讼并允许修正(WITH LEAVE TO AMEND)，意思是要求原告方的VALVE和暴雪回去补充足以证明其主张的材料。驳回的时候如果是WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND，那才是不认可其主张。当然，既然针对《Heroes Charge》的证据不足，那么针对莉莉丝和《刀塔传奇》的应该同样也要补充证据，所以文件的接收方也有莉莉丝，不过这份文件没有显示任何莉莉丝针对起诉 的应对。
如果认真看这个法官文件)的话…能知道这个法官文件主要内容其实和《刀公益塔传奇》和莉莉丝没有关系，主要是作为联合被告方的《Heroes Charge》开发商uCOOL在和暴雪、VALVEBANANA打对台，法院针对的是uCool单独提出的要求驳回对自己的诉讼的要求做出的回应。
在暴雪和VALVE提交的证据中：