Electronic Arts petition for trademark cancellation
In September 2009, Electronic Arts petitioned the US Patent & Trademark Office to cancel four registrations associated with the mark “EDGE”.  Initially, only Edge Games was named as a defendant in the action, but Future Publishing was added as a co-defendant after raised an objection after EA and Edge had agreed a settlement.The petition sought the cancellation of various 'EDGE' trademarks either on the grounds that they were originally obtained by fraud on the USPTO, or that they had been abandoned through non-use. It also alleged that EA owned common law rights in the mark "Mirror's Edge." EA's petition came after what it had described as continued threats of legal action by Edge Games with respect to the title of EA's 2008 game Mirror's Edge. Langdell stated that Edge had not threatened EA with litigation and that the prior year had been spent negotiating an amicable settlement on the use of the trademark. According to a report by gaming blog Kotaku, the USPTO database listed the trademark "Mirror's Edge" as "abandoned" as of September 8, 2009. An EA spokesman said the company had been unsuccessful in its attempt to resolve the dispute, which led to the filing of the petition on September 11, 2009.
In June 2010, Edge Games filed a lawsuit against Electronic Arts over Mirror's Edge, which Langdell claimed he had done at the request of Future Publishing, seeking damages and a court injunction against further infringement. EA responded by counter-suing to cancel various "EDGE" trademarks co-owned by Edge and Future, but only naming Edge in the counter-suit. On October 1, 2010 the United States District Court for the Northern District of California rejected the request for a preliminary (i.e. immediate) injunction. In the opinion section of his ruling Judge William Alsup stated that Langdell may have been deceiving the Patent and Trademark Office.
"Given the suspect nature of Dr. Langdell's representations to both the USPTO and the Court concerning plaintiff's current and future sales and business activities, it is an open question whether plaintiff's business activities legitimately extend beyond trolling various gaming-related industries for licensing opportunities."
Regarding the claim of Abandonment of the “EDGE” trademark, Judge Alsup continued, "EA also presents compelling evidence that there was no bona fide use of the "EDGE" mark in commerce by plaintiff, its licensees, or its predecessors in interest at all between 1989 and to at least 2003."Regarding the claim of Fraud and Abandonment, Judge Alsup said the preliminary injunction record contained compelling evidence that the marks were fraudulently registered and/or abandoned by Edge, he then qualified his opinion noting that the matter was set for a jury trial and a “jury may ultimately find otherwise.”
The court was also shown that Langdell had allegedly submitted a magazine cover which was noted to be very similar to Future Publishing's "Edge" U.K. magazine cover for the same month but was not the genuine Future cover; A clause in the final judgment cancelled out these accusations stating there was no wrong doing by any party, ruling that Langdell was not guilty of fraud.
On October 7, 2010, it was reported that a US judge was reviewing an agreement between the parties that "would strip Langdell of what the source referred to as his trademarks for "edge", "cutting edge", "the edge" and "gamer's edge", without any admission of wrongdoing on Langdell's part"; On October 11, 2010, it was reported that Langdell was to lose his trademarks.
In filings at the USPTO, it was stated that lawsuit had ended in a settlement, involving the voluntary surrender of the trademark owned by Edge Games along with Future Publishing's interest in one of them. The court case ended in a final judgment by Judge Alsup which cancelled out all the accusations against Langdell, stating there was no wrong doing by any party.
In late 2010, EA tried to use the court judgement to compel the USPTO to cancel the "EDGE" marks, but Future Publishing intervened to stop the cancellations stating that as co-owner of the marks the court order was invalid because Future was not a party to the order. After a further two years of discussion with the USPTO between EA, Future Publishing and Edge Games, the USPTO finally acted on the court order on April 17, 2013. An appeal to the Federal Circuit was filed, but voluntarily dismissed.