Background
The dispute concerned the development and publication of the video game Six Days in Fallujah. Under an October 2025 publishing agreement, Secret Mode Limited and Six Days Holdings Limited agreed to fund development and publish the game, while developer Victura, Inc granted publishing rights and agreed to deliver milestone builds. After rejecting version 0.6 and two resubmissions, the publishers claimed a contractual right to step in, assume control of development, and obtain the game’s source code.
Victura maintained that it had terminated the agreement before the step-in right took effect. It alleged, among other things, that rejection of the milestone had been predetermined to obtain its proprietary source code and formed part of an unlawful-means conspiracy involving Secret Mode, Emona Capital LLP, and Splash Damage Limited. Pending trial, each side sought what the court called the “keys to the kingdom”: the publishers sought source code and development control, while Victura sought full development and publishing control, protection for confidential information, segregation of game revenues, and restored access to console-development portals.
The Court’s Holding
Applying American Cyanamid principles, Mr Justice Richards accepted that both sides’ claims raised serious issues to be tried and decided the competing applications by the balance of convenience. He refused Victura’s application for interim control because, although Victura had the expertise to develop and publish the game, it had not demonstrated sufficiently certain funding to complete both tasks or adequate resources to support its cross-undertaking in damages.
The court also refused the publishers’ application for interim source-code and development control. Although the publishers had sufficient expertise and financial resources, disclosure of code developed at a cost exceeding $50 million risked irremediable harm if Victura’s allegations proved correct, and transferring development created a material risk of delay while a new developer learned the code. The court therefore left the contractual status quo in place, with Victura acting as developer and the publishers as publisher. It directed that Victura receive developer access to the PlayStation and Xbox portals but declined to remove the publishers’ own publisher access. The court also held that the parties’ 9 April 2026 video call was protected by without-prejudice privilege and excluded evidence recounting it.
Key Takeaways
- Neither party obtained exclusive development and publishing control before trial; the court preserved their existing division of roles.
- Financial capacity to finish the project and honor a cross-undertaking was decisive against Victura’s request for interim control.
- The risk of exposing valuable proprietary source code and delaying completion outweighed the publishers’ stronger financial position.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how courts assess competing mandatory injunctions over a technology project when damages may be difficult to quantify. Even where both parties show serious issues to be tried, the court may preserve the practical status quo if transferring control or confidential assets could cause irreversible commercial harm.
For game developers and publishers, the ruling highlights the interim-litigation importance of milestone procedures, source-code protections, access rights, project financing, and credible security for cross-undertakings in damages.