A High Court decision involving the video game Six Days in Fallujah has laid bare the difficulties of obtaining interim injunctions when legal conflicts involve proprietary software, competing claims over development authority, and disagreements about contractual obligations.
The dispute between developer Victura and publisher Secret Mode revolved around an eight-year project valued at $50 million. In October 2025, the two companies signed a publishing agreement, with Secret Mode agreeing to provide up to $8 million in staged development advances. The contract also included step-in rights: if Secret Mode rejected a development milestone after two resubmissions, it could assume control of the project and demand access to the game’s source code.
Tensions escalated in early 2026 when Secret Mode rejected Milestone 0.6, citing problems with the game’s artificial intelligence system, where non-player characters would freeze in place unnaturally. Victura accused the publisher of deliberately rejecting the milestone to gain access to its proprietary code, particularly the technology behind procedural building generation. Secret Mode insisted it was acting within its contractual rights.
Both parties then sought interim injunctions to prevent the other from continuing development or publishing the game while the legal proceedings unfolded. In August 2026, the court rejected both requests, stating that key questions remained about the adequacy of financial compensation and the sensitivity of the source code.
Victura argued the step-in rights were not validly exercised and that it had terminated the publishing agreement on April 29, 2026. Secret Mode argued that the contract still entitled it to intervene. The court’s refusal to grant interim relief highlights how disputes over unfinished but high-value projects often stall in legal uncertainty when proprietary technology is involved.
Unlike many development conflicts, both companies pursued injunctions simultaneously, forcing the court to balance competing claims over control of the game. The ruling indicates that courts may avoid granting injunctions in such cases unless there is clear evidence of irreversible damage. Victura’s termination of the agreement further complicates the legal path forward.
