Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc.
863 F. Supp. 2d 394, 103 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1959, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74463 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The audio-visual expression of a video game, including the style, shape, color, and movement of game pieces and the dimensions of the playing field, is protectable under copyright law and is not unprotectable merely because it is related to the game's unprotectable rules or functions.
Facts:
- Alexy Pajitnov developed the puzzle video game Tetris in the mid-1980s, and Tetris Holding, LLC later acquired the copyrights to its visual expression.
- Tetris became a worldwide success, selling over 200 million units and generating billions of online plays.
- Desiree Golden formed Xio Interactive, Inc. ('Xio') to create a multiplayer puzzle game for the iPhone called 'Mino'.
- Xio admitted that it was inspired by Tetris, downloaded the Tetris iPhone application, and used it for the purpose of developing its own version of the game.
- Xio's stated goal was to copy the 'look and feel' of Tetris as much as it believed copyright law would permit, believing it could freely copy any element it deemed part of a 'rule of the game' or functional to gameplay.
- Xio released 'Mino' in May 2009, which featured game pieces, a playing field, and gameplay animations that were visually almost identical to those in Tetris.
Procedural Posture:
- Tetris Holding sent take-down notices to Apple, Inc. pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
- Apple removed 'Mino' and 'Mino Lite' from its online marketplace.
- Xio's counsel sent counter-notifications to Apple.
- Apple informed Tetris Holding that the games would be reinstated unless a lawsuit was filed.
- Tetris Holding filed a lawsuit against Xio in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging copyright infringement, trade dress infringement, and other claims.
- Both Tetris Holding (Plaintiff) and Xio (Defendant) filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the federal copyright and trade dress claims.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a video game's visual expression, such as the style and movement of its playing pieces and the dimensions of its playing field, constitute protectable expression under copyright law, even when those elements are related to the game's unprotectable rules and functions?
Opinions:
Majority - Wolfson, J.
Yes. A video game's visual expression constitutes protectable expression under copyright law, even when related to game rules, because the specific artistic choices are separable from the underlying, unprotectable game ideas. The Copyright Act's idea-expression dichotomy protects the expression of an idea but not the idea itself. While the rules of a game are unprotectable ideas, the particular way those rules are visually expressed—such as the specific shapes, colors, shading, and movement of game pieces (tetrominos), and the exact dimensions of the playing field—are creative choices protected by copyright. Defendant Xio's argument that any visual element related to a 'function' or 'rule' is unprotectable is an incorrect and overly broad interpretation of the law that would swallow copyright protection for games entirely. Doctrines like merger and scenes à faire do not apply here, as there are countless ways to express the idea of a falling block puzzle game, as demonstrated by other games like 'Dr. Mario'. Xio engaged in wholesale, literal-like copying of Tetris's distinctive look and feel, which goes far beyond merely using the same game rules and constitutes copyright infringement.
Analysis:
This case is significant for solidifying copyright protection for the 'look and feel' of video games. It clarifies that a defendant cannot escape infringement liability by arguing that copied visual elements are merely 'functional' or part of the game's 'rules.' The decision establishes a strong precedent that specific, creative, and expressive choices in a game's audio-visual presentation are protectable, even if they are tied to gameplay mechanics. This ruling strengthens the hand of original game creators against clones that mimic a game's aesthetic and overall experience without copying the underlying code, forcing competitors to innovate rather than imitate.
