Incredible Technologies, Inc. v. Virtual Technologies, Inc. D/B/A Global Vr
74 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1031, 400 F.3d 1007, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 4262 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Functional elements of a creative work, such as a video game's control system, and standard or indispensable elements of a genre, known as scenes a faire, are not protectable under copyright or trade dress law.
Facts:
- Incredible Technologies, Inc. (IT) manufactures and holds copyrights for the highly successful coin-operated video golf game, 'Golden Tee'.
- Golden Tee is operated via a control panel with a central trackball, which players roll backward for a backswing and forward to complete the swing, simulating a golf shot.
- Virtual Technologies, Inc. (Global VR), aware of Golden Tee's popularity, decided to create a competing game, 'PGA Tour® Golf'.
- Global VR acquired a Golden Tee game and instructed its developers to design the new game so that an existing Golden Tee player would face 'no appreciable learning curve'.
- The resulting 'PGA Tour Golf' game featured a control panel with a size, shape, and placement of its trackball and buttons that were nearly identical to those of Golden Tee.
- Both games allow players to simulate different types of shots (e.g., a draw or a fade) by altering the angle of the trackball's movement.
- The games also had significant differences: Golden Tee used fictional courses and generic golfers, while PGA Tour Golf featured real-world courses and professional golfers and used a different cabinet color scheme and artwork.
Procedural Posture:
- Incredible Technologies, Inc. (IT) filed a lawsuit for copyright and trade dress infringement against Virtual Technologies, Inc. (Global VR) in the U.S. District Court.
- The district court denied IT's request for a temporary restraining order.
- Following a 6-day hearing, the district court denied IT's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding IT had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits.
- IT (as appellant) appealed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are elements of a video game, such as its control panel layout and common on-screen depictions of the sport, protectable under copyright and trade dress law when those elements are functional or considered standard to the genre (scenes a faire)?
Opinions:
Majority - Terence T. Evans
No. Elements of a video game that are functional or are standard features indispensable to depicting the subject matter (scenes a faire) are not protectable under copyright or trade dress law. The court reasoned that copyright protection does not extend to ideas, methods of operation, or functional elements. The trackball system is a functional 'method of operation' under 17 U.S.C. § 102(b), and its physical layout on the control panel is dictated by functional considerations like player convenience and manufacturing ease, not creative expression. Furthermore, the scenes a faire doctrine precludes protection for elements that are standard or indispensable to a topic. For a realistic golf game, features such as golf courses, clubs, a wind meter, and sand traps are scenes a faire. Because these core similar elements are unprotectable, infringement can only be found if the protected expressive elements are virtually identical, which they were not in this case due to differences in courses, golfers, and on-screen graphics. The trade dress claim also fails because the control panel is functional and the prominent, distinct branding on the cabinets prevents a likelihood of consumer confusion.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the important boundary between copyright and patent law, clarifying that functional aspects of a useful article, even within a creative work like a video game, are not protectable by copyright. It solidifies the application of the scenes a faire doctrine to video games, preventing developers from monopolizing standard features that players expect in a particular genre. This ruling promotes competition by allowing developers to create games with a similar 'feel' or 'gameplay mechanic' as long as they do not copy the purely creative and non-functional expressive elements like specific artwork, characters, or story.
