The sun has set on a four-year showdown between law school admission test preparation companies Testmasters and Blueprint Test Preparation, which I took to prepare for the December LSAT.
Here's a bit of the release from the Blueprint website:
On June 15, 2009, Judge William Highberger entered the statement of decision and DENIED the permanent injunction sought by Testmasters against Blueprint and UPHELD the jury's verdict."
Read the decision in full here.
If you don't feel like reading the whole thing, because, dude, it's summer, here's my understanding of what went down:
Blueprint Test Preparation was started several years ago by former Testmasters instructors, who started Blueprint four months before the end of their Testmasters teaching gigs. According to Testmasters, since Blueprint founders were disloyal to the company, they had to pay back wages earned from Testmasters during those last four months and any profit earned from Blueprint during those four months.
Testmasters representatives also implied that Blueprint materials were derived from Testmasters' materials.
A jury last year found that Blueprint and its employees were liable on some causes of action. The jury awarded damages to Testmasters, in the amount of 1% of the originally sought amount. Judge Highberger upheld the jury verdict, and further stated that Blueprint materials were distinct from Testmasters' materials.
Some of the Testmasters more PR-y tactics used during the litigation included: disseminating inflammatory fliers about Blueprint on college campuses, editing deposition videos for use on a website called "Blueprint Blues," and an endless stream of cease and desist letters.
If you're a Law 360 subscriber, you can read a story they wrote here.