Intellectual Property Summer Bulletin 2011
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Intellectual Property 2011 summer bulletin Knockoffs: Nemesis of the Gaming World by jennifer lloyd kelly and theis finlev On March 22, Amazon launched the Appstore for Android, bringing video games to the fingertips of thousands of Android users who, like their iPhone and iPad-toting friends, can now purchase and play video games anywhere, anytime. Due to mobile device games’ ease of access, highly addictive nature, and low price points, the market for such games has exploded in recent years. With many such games achieving almost cult- like status (think Angry Birds, which has achieved over 100 million downloads across all platforms), the emergence of knockoffs is practically inevitable. In fact, we have already witnessed a number of copyright disputes between game developers and their alleged infringers, some of which have actually reached litigation. Most recently, on June 16, 2011, Zynga Inc., developer of several of the most popular Facebook games, sued Vostu Inc. in federal court, alleging that Vostu’s In This Bulletin games “duplicate and incorporate the unique expressions of Zynga’s games.” For its part, Vostu responded that its games are full of original content and have been Knockoffs: Nemesis of the Gaming independently created. For good measure, Vostu added that Zynga has itself been World _________________________ 1 accused of copying so many games that it has lost the ability to recognize original Reining in the Inequitable Conduct games. This suit reflects game developers’ increasing vigilance in protecting the Defense: Federal Circuit’s Therasense copyrights in their games. Decision Tightens Standards for Establishing Materiality and Intent __ 3 However, before attorneys rush to advise their mobile game developer clients to file suit, they should bear in mind the relatively limited copyright protection video games Is the Copyright-Troll Business Model historically have received. While there is not yet a body of copyright law specific to Undone? Righthaven Suffers Three mobile device games, the analytical framework established in video game cases Strikes in a Week ________________ 5 dating back to the 1980s is certain to shape copyright claims involving mobile games. Quick Updates ________________ 6 Thirty years ago, at the dawn of video game litigation, a court found it necessary to Supreme Court Clarifies Patent explain that video games were “computers programmed to create on a television Infringement Inducement screen cartoons in which some of the action is controlled by the player.” Stern Standards ___________________ 6 Electronics Inc. v. Kaufman, 669 F.2d 852 (2d. Cir. 1982). Since then, while video District Court Holds Online games have become infinitely more complex, copyright infringement analysis as Publication Means Publication of a applied to them has remained rather simple – and the copyright protections afforded U.S. Work ____________________ 7 most games rather narrow. A Combination of Components Can Be Designated a Trade Secret ____ 8 Where a video game is based on a sport or other real-life activity, courts generally have been unwilling to find infringement unless the games are virtually identical. ICANN Approves New sTLD .XXX __ 9 These holdings are rooted in the fundamental principle of copyright law that one can receive protection only for the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. Under this principle, certain elements of a work are free for the taking and, hence, cannot form the basis of an infringement claim. These elements include general plots, themes and genres; scènes à faire (common story elements); and purely functional aspects of the work. In the context of sports or real-life-themed cannot receive protection for its stock elements, such video games, courts have concluded that content as its maze, scoring table, tunnel exits, or use of dots to such as scoring systems, stereotypical characters, or gauge a player’s performance. common sports moves fall within these unprotectable categories. Because those games often are comprised Indeed, regardless of a game’s ilk (sports and real-life largely of such content, they historically have received versus fanciful), courts generally have conducted their little protection under the copyright laws. In Incredible infringement analysis by disregarding, or “filtering Technologies, Inc. v. Virtual Technologies, Inc., 400 out,” all unprotectable elements of the games and F.3d 1007 (7th Cir. 2005), the U.S. Court of Appeals, then comparing any similarities that remain. For Seventh Circuit denied plaintiff’s motion for injunctive instance, in Capcom U.S.A., Inc. v. Data East Corp., relief where similarities between PGA Tour and Golden 1994 WL 1751482 (N.D. Cal. March 16, 1994), Capcom Tee video games were based on similarities inherent to alleged infringement of its one-on-one street fighting the game of golf. As the court explained, “golf is not a game, Street Fighter II, by Data East’s Fighter’s History, game subject to totally fanciful presentation,” because claiming that seven of its characters and twenty-seven all golf games feature certain elements, such as sand of the characters’ special moves were improperly traps and water hazards. Likewise, in Data East USA, copied. The court first determined that four of the Inc. v. Epyx, Inc., 862 F.2d 204 (9th Cir. 1988), the seven characters were stereotypical characters and court held that Epyx’s World Karate Championship 22 of the special moves were based on basic martial game did not infringe Data East’s Karate Champ game arts disciplines and, as such, were unprotectable. because the identified similarities between the games After comparing just the remaining three characters were inherent to all karate video games. and five special moves, the court found that there was no substantial similarity between the games. In contrast, games that are more fanciful or imaginative More recently, in Capcom Co. v. MKR Group, Inc., generally have received greater protection against 2008 WL 4661479 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2008) (albeit infringers. For example, in Midway Mfg. Co. v. Bandai- a movie/game comparison), the owner of the rights America, Inc., 546 F. Supp. 125 (D.N.J. 1982), Midway to the 1979 horror movie Dawn of the Dead alleged sought a preliminary injunction to stop Bandai from that Capcom’s Dead Rising video game violated its distributing an alleged knockoff of Midway’s Galaxian, copyrights because, among other things, both works an outer space game in which the player controls involved humans battling zombies in a shopping mall a rocket ship defending itself against a swarm of during a massive zombie outbreak. Before comparing computer-controlled aliens who attempt to bomb and the works, the court first filtered out all unprotectable collide with the player’s ship. The court granted the elements, and then concluded that the remaining injunction, noting that it was not necessary for Bandai claimed similarities necessarily flowed from the to copy Midway’s particular expressions (such as the “unprotectable idea of zombies in a mall” and thus, insectile shape of the aliens’ heads) in developing could not support a finding of infringement. Bandai’s own version of an outer space game involving a ship attacked by aliens. But even then, the court was What these cases suggest is that, in any dispute careful to note that Midway’s copyright did not preclude involving the alleged copying of a mobile device game, the development of other outer space-themed video the first and most important part of the analysis will games based on the same, unprotected idea. Similarly, be developing a good understanding of the game’s in Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer particular genre and the elements of the game that are Electronics Corp., 672 F.2d 607 (7th Cir. 1982), driven by that genre. Unless it can be shown that what superseded by statute on other grounds by Fed. R. Civ. has been copied goes beyond these stock elements P. 52(a), as amended Dec. 1, 1995, the court granted a and into the realm of the author’s unique expression, preliminary injunction against a knockoff of Pac-Man, it is likely to be game over for any such claim. based on similarities between the relative size and shape of the protagonist’s bodies, their V-shaped mouths, and their distinctive gobbling action. Yet the court observed that even a fanciful game like Pac-Man 2 fenwick & west intellectual property bulletin Reining in the Inequitable Conduct Defense: appeared inconsistent with arguments about that Federal Circuit’s Therasense Decision Tightens statement made to the European Patent Office (EPO). Standards for Establishing Materiality and Intent The patent-in-suit involves test strips with by darren e. donnelly and betsy white electrochemical sensors to measure a blood sample glucose level. It claims a test strip for testing whole Responding to views from the United States Patent blood without a membrane over an electrode on the and Trademark Office (PTO) and elsewhere about the strip. During prosecution, the PTO repeatedly rejected unintended consequences of the current inequitable the claims for anticipation and obviousness based on conduct doctrine, a divided en banc U.S. Court of a prior art patent (also owned by the patentee) which Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision issued on May disclosed a similar test strip, but referred to the use 25, 2011, which adjusted the materiality standard, of a protective membrane “optionally, but preferably making this defense harder to establish. Writing for when being used on live blood.” Attempting to the majority in Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson distinguish its invention, the patentee told the PTO, & Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 10590 (Fed. Cir. May 25, in both a declaration and amendment, that a person 2011), Chief Judge Rader laments that the inequitable of ordinary skill in the art would understand the conduct doctrine had been overused to the detriment statement in the prior art as requiring a membrane of the courts and “the entire patent system,” and that for use with whole blood.