View source for Data East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc.

{{Short description|1988 legal case}}
{{Infobox court case
| name = Data East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc.
| court = United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
| image = Seal of the United States Courts, Ninth Judicial Circuit.svg
| full name =
| date decided = {{End date|1988|11|30}}
| citations = 862 F.2d [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/862/204/20289/ 204], 9 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1322
| ECLI =
| transcripts =
| judges = James R. Browning, Procter Ralph Hug Jr., Stephen S. Trott
| number of judges = 3
| decision by =
| concurring =
| dissenting =
| concur/dissent =
| prior actions = [[Company:Epyx|Epyx]] published a karate video game with gameplay fairly similar to the [[Company:Data East|Data East]]'s karate game, which was already available for several years. Data East subsequently brought action against Epyx for, among other allegations, copyright infringement. The district court ruled for Data East on the copyright infringement issue and Epyx appealed.
| appealed from =
| appealed to =
| subsequent actions =
| related actions =
| opinions = There was no infringement on the copyright of Data East by Epyx.
| keywords = [[Copyright infringement]]
}}

'''''Data East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc.''''' 862 F.2d 204, 9 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1322 (9th Cir. 1988)<ref name="data_east_v_epyx">{{cite court|litigants=Data East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc.|court=9th Cir.|reporter=F.2d|vol=862|opinion=204|pinpoint=|date=1988|url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/862/204/20289/|quote=|accessdate=2018-02-08}}</ref> was a court case between two [[Software:Video game developer|video game manufacturers]], where [[Company:Data East|Data East]] claimed that their copyright in ''[[Software:Karate Champ|Karate Champ]]'' was infringed by ''[[Software:International Karate|World Karate Championship]],'' a game created by [[Company:Epyx|Epyx]]. Data East released ''Karate Champ'' in [[Software:Arcade game|arcades]] in 1984, and the game became a best-seller and pioneered the [[Software:Fighting game|fighting game]] genre. The next year, Epyx published ''World Karate Championship'' for home computers, which sold 1.5 million copies. Data East sued Epyx, alleging that the game infringed on their copyright and trademark.

The district court found that Epyx had infringed on Data East's copyright, but not their trademark, and ordered an [[Social:Injunction|injunction]] against distributing ''World Karate Championship''. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit court reversed the decision on appeal, finding that the lower court erred in finding that the works were substantially similar. As a principle, there is no substantial similarity between the expression of two works if the [[Social:Idea–expression distinction|expression is inseparable from the idea]]. The court also applied the [[Social:Scènes à faire|scènes à faire]] doctrine that no one can own a generic scene, and the [[Social:Merger doctrine (copyright law)|merger doctrine]] that no one can own the expression to an idea if there is only one way to express it. Although the games shared fifteen similarities, the court determined these were inherent to making a video game about karate, and lifted the injunction against Epyx.

In the 1994 case ''[[Software:Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp.|Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp.]]'', Data East used the same principle to defend its game ''[[Software:Fighter's History (video game)|Fighter's History]]'' from [[Company:Capcom|Capcom]]'s accusations that they infringed ''[[Software:Street Fighter II|Street Fighter II]]''. This led most lawsuits about alleged [[Software:Video game clone|video game clone]]s to be settled between the mid-1990s through to the mid-2000s. This approach began to shift in 2012 with ''[[Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc.]]'' and ''[[Spry Fox, LLC v. Lolapps, Inc.]]'', as graphical improvements have made it harder to dismiss similarities as a coincidence of technological limitation.

== Background ==

=== Facts ===
{{Quote box
| quote = Despite being originally asked to complete the work on a totally different game, I did go off and evolve all the programming, graphics and sound effects myself, and pointed out that a karate game with two karate players wearing red and white karate suits fighting within the familiar rules of a bout of karate is bound to look similar to any other game featuring karate players wearing karate suits and doing karate moves in timed bouts of karate fighting! I think that’s why the look and feel and rules became better defined. At a high level of abstraction it’s easy to say that ''[[Software:Karate Champ|Karate Champ]]'' is like ''[[Software:The Way of the Exploding Fist|Fist]]'' is like ''[[Software:International Karate|IK1]]'' is like ''[[Software:Tekken|Tekken]]'' and so on. They all feature bouts of timed karate-type gameplay.
| source = Archer Maclean, developer of International Karate
| align = left
| width = 32em
}}
In 1984, [[Company:Data East|Data East]] released an [[Software:Arcade game|arcade]] [[Software:Fighting game|fighting game]] called ''[[Software:Karate Champ|Karate Champ]].''<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|last=Hatfield|first=Ryan Geddes & Daemon|date=2007-12-11|title=IGN's Top 10 Most Influential Games|url=https://www.ign.com/articles/2007/12/11/igns-top-10-most-influential-games|access-date=2022-02-20|website=IGN|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Buchanan|first=Levi|date=2010-05-24|title=Karate Champ iPhone Review|url=https://www.ign.com/articles/2010/05/24/karate-champ-iphone-review|access-date=2022-02-20|website=IGN|language=en}}</ref> The game was a commercial success in arcades,<ref name="megahits2">{{cite journal|author=Worley, Joyce|date=December 1989|title=Mega Hits: The Best of the Best|url=https://archive.org/details/Video_Games_Computer_Entertainment_Issue_11_December_1989|journal=Video Games & Computer Entertainment|issue=11|pages=130–132, 137, 138}}</ref> becoming the top grossing cabinet in both Japan and America.<ref>{{cite magazine|date=15 August 1984|title=Best Hit Games 25|url=https://onitama.tv/gamemachine/pdf/19840815p.pdf#page=13|magazine=Game Machine|publisher=Amusement Press, Inc.|issue=242|page=25|lang=ja}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|date=January 1994|title=Top Stories of '93: Video Violence|url=https://archive.org/details/re-play-volume-19-issue-no.-4-january-1994/RePlay%20-%20Volume%2019%2C%20Issue%20No.%204%20-%20January%201994/page/60|magazine=RePlay|volume=19|issue=4|page=60}}</ref> The game once again became a best-seller when it was re-released for home computers,<ref name="megahits2"/> becoming the first game to receive a "Diamond Award" from the Software Publishers Association for sales above 500,000 units.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Petska-Juliussen|first1=Karen|url=https://archive.org/details/computerindustry00kare/page/n265/mode/2up|title=The Computer Industry Almanac 1990|last2=Juliussen|first2=Egil|date=1990|publisher=Brady|isbn=978-0-13-154122-1|location=New York|pages=3.10–11}}</ref> ''Karate Champ'' is considered the first fighting game,<ref name=":1" /> and the [[Software:Player versus player|player versus player]] version is the first fighting game to allow two players to fight each other.<ref>{{cite magazine|last1=Toose|first1=Dan|date=December 1998|title=Retrospect: Karate Champ (Vs) Ancient History|url=https://archive.org/details/hyper-062/page/100|magazine=Hyper|issue=62|page=100}}</ref>

In 1985, [[Company:System 3|System 3]] began producing a karate game of their own, when their programmer and artist walked off the project. They approached game developer Archer Maclean to salvage the project, who decided re-start development by emulating other popular arcade martial arts games, such as ''[[Software:The Way of the Exploding Fist|The Way of the Exploding Fist]].''<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=April 30, 2014|title=The Making Of International Karate and IK+|url=https://www.retrogamer.net/retro_games80/the-making-of-international-karate-and-ik/|access-date=2022-02-20|website=Retro Gamer|language=en-US}}</ref> The final product was ''[[Software:International Karate|International Karate]],'' which was published as ''World Karate Championship'' by [[Company:Epyx|Epyx]] in North America.<ref name=":6">{{cite magazine|date=March 2006|title=8-Bit-'Em-Ups|url=https://archive.org/details/retro_gamer/RetroGamer_022/page/56/mode/2up|magazine=Retro Gamer|issue=22|pages=56–7}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Fox|first1=Matt|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xzMYYrsDaAEC&pg=PA150|title=The Video Games Guide: 1,000+ Arcade, Console and Computer Games, 1962-2012, 2d ed.|date=3 January 2013|publisher=McFarland & Company|isbn=978-0-7864-7257-4|page=150}}</ref> The game went on to sell over {{nowrap|1.5 million}} copies in the United States, as the first European-made game to top the ''Billboard'' software charts.<ref name=":6" />

The success of ''International Karate'' attracted scrutiny from competitors,<ref name=":4" /> and Data East alleged that the game had copied their game ''Karate Champ'' without authorization.''<ref name=":22" />'' Maclean began to receive questions about the games' similarities, and he responded that two games about organized karate matches are likely to be similar.<ref name=":4" /> There indeed were similarities such as the scoring systems, referees, and several fighting moves.''<ref name=":22" />'' Also the games both one combatant wearing white, and the other wearing red, with a bonus round between matches where the combatants break bricks and dodge objects.<ref name=":7">{{Cite book|last=Gomulkiewicz|first=Robert W.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kMTfDgAAQBAJ|title=Licensing Intellectual Property: Law and Applications|date=2014-10-30|publisher=Wolters Kluwer|isbn=978-1-4548-4964-3|language=en}}</ref> Data East sued Epyx for copyright infringement, as well as infringement in ''Karate Champ''<nowiki/>'s [[Social:Trademark|Trademark]] and [[Social:Trade dress|Trade Dress]].<ref name=":7" />

=== Law ===
Courts have used the substantial similarity test to determine whether one work has unlawfully copied another, while allowing copying in instances where the similarities are not owned by anyone.<ref name=":12">{{Cite journal|last=Dean|first=Drew S.|date=2016|title=Hitting Reset: Devising a New Video Game Copyright Regime|url=https://www.pennlawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/164-U-Pa-L-Rev-1239.pdf|journal=University of Pennsylvania Law Review|volume=164|pages=1239–1280}}</ref> One of the most influential cases in this area was [[Atari v. Amusement World]] from 1981, where the court listed numerous similarities between the games [[Software:Asteroids (video game)|''Asteroids'']] and its alleged clone, ''Meteors''.<ref name=":12" /> Despite twenty-two similarities, the court determined that these were unprotected ideas that are inherent to the game concept of shooting rocks in space.''<ref name=":22">{{Cite web|date=February 27, 2013|title=Clone Wars: The Five Most Important Cases Every Game Developer Should Know|url=https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/clone-wars-the-five-most-important-cases-every-game-developer-should-know|url-status=live|archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220130/https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/clone-wars-the-five-most-important-cases-every-game-developer-should-know|archive-date=2022-01-30|access-date=November 18, 2021|website=Game Developer}}{{cbignore}}</ref>'' At the time, it was one of the only cases to rule in favor of the defendant, based on the [[Social:Idea–expression distinction|idea-expression distinction]] that copyright does not protect broad ideas, only unique expression.<ref name=":13">{{Cite journal|last=Hemnes|first=Thomas M. S.|date=1982|title=The Adaptation of Copyright Law to Video Games|url=https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4669&context=penn_law_review|journal=University of Pennsylvania Law Review|volume=131|issue=1|pages=171–233|doi=10.2307/3311832|jstor=3311832}}</ref> Using similar principles, the court concluded that the video game ''K.C. Munchkin!'' infringed several protected elements of ''[[Software:Pac-Man|Pac-Man]]'', in ''Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp.''<ref name=":02">{{Cite book|last=Graham|first=Lawrence D.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=c6IS3RnN6qAC&dq=kc+munchkin&pg=PA28|title=Legal Battles that Shaped the Computer Industry|date=1999|publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group|isbn=978-1-56720-178-9|language=en}}</ref> At the time, courts had started to apply complex copyright principles to video games to show that certain elements are ineligible for copyright protection. This includes the [[Social:Scènes à faire|scènes à faire]] doctrine that generic scenes cannot be owned by anyone, as well as the [[Social:Merger doctrine (copyright law)|merger doctrine]] that no one can own the expression to an idea if that's one of the only ways to express it.<ref name=":12" />

== Ruling and appeal ==

=== District Court ===

The case was heard in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, where the court ruled that Epyx had infringed upon Data East's copyright, but not their trademark.<ref name="data_east_v_epyx" /> One of the issues was whether Epyx had accessed Data East's game. Since they provided no evidence that they created their game independently, the similarities were strong enough for the district court to infer that Epyx likely purchased it and discovered the underlying program.<ref name=":9">{{Cite journal |last=Andersen |first=Celeste Elizabeth |date=January 1989 |title=A Promise of Conformity in the Area of "Look and Feel"? |url=https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1067&context=chtlj |journal=Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal |volume=5 |issue=2 |pages=547–557}}</ref> Even though the district court acknowledged a few cosmetic differences between the games, they still concluded that the idea expressed in both games is identical.<ref name="data_east_v_epyx" /> A major factor in the ruling was the determination that the average consumer, a 17.5 year old male, would subjectively regard the two games as substantially similar.<ref name=":9" /> The court ordered a permanent injunction against Epyx, and an impoundment that restrained Epyx from further sale or distribution of ''World Karate Championship''.<ref name="Dragon127">{{Cite journal|author=Hartley Lesser, Patricia Lesser|date=November 1987|title=The Role of Computers|url=https://archive.org/stream/DragonMagazine260_201801/DragonMagazine127#page/n75/mode/2up|journal=Dragon|issue=127|pages=74–80}}</ref> Epyx was required to recall all copies of the infringing work.<ref name=":4" />

=== Appeal ===
[[File:Stephen S. Trott Circuit Judge.jpg|thumb|Judge Stephen S. Trott wrote the opinion for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.]]
Epyx appealed the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, alleging that the district court was mistaken about the substantial similarity between the games.<ref name="data_east_v_epyx" /><ref>{{Cite book |last=Wolf |first=Mark J. P. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fc0vEAAAQBAJ |title=Encyclopedia of Video Games: The Culture, Technology, and Art of Gaming, 2nd Edition [3 volumes] |date=2021-05-24 |publisher=ABC-CLIO |isbn=978-1-4408-7020-0 |pages=240–241 |language=en}}</ref> Epyx did not dispute that Data East owned a valid copyright in ''Karate Champ'', but disputed that there had been direct copying, and that the similarities between the games were evidence of copyright infringement.<ref name="data_east_v_epyx" /> The central issue in the appeal was whether the similarities between the games were result of unlawful copying, or if they were the inherent result of making a game about karate.<ref name=":9" />

Writing for the appeal court, Judge Stephen S. Trott noted that copyright disputes seldom have evidence of one party directly copying another.<ref name="data_east_v_epyx" /> Thus, Data East needed to provide circumstantial evidence that Epyx had copied them, including evidence that Epyx had access to ''Karate Champ'' while making ''World Karate Championship,'' and that the two games were substantially similar.<ref name="data_east_v_epyx" /> To determine the question of substantial similarity, Judge Trott applied the framework used in the copyright case ''Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions Inc. v. McDonald's Corp.'', with an additional analysis of elements that fall outside of copyright protection.<ref name=":9" /> An analysis of substantial similarity should exclude unprotectable elements, which are eliminated by applying the idea-expression dichotomy, the merger doctrine, and the scènes à faire doctrine.<ref name=":12" /> The court summarized the principle that "no substantial similarity of expression will be found when the idea and its expression are inseparable."<ref name="data_east_v_epyx" />

The court found that the games shared fifteen characteristics.<ref name=":8">{{Cite book |last1=Eyman |first1=Douglas |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hasWEAAAQBAJ |title=Play/Write: Digital Rhetoric, Writing Games |last2=Davis |first2=Andréa D. |date=2016-04-06 |publisher=Parlor Press LLC |isbn=978-1-60235-734-1 |language=ar}}</ref> However, the court determined that these characteristics, "which consist of the game procedure, common karate moves, the idea of background scenes, a time element, a referee, computer graphics, and bonus points, result from either constraints inherent in the sport of karate or computer restraints."<ref name="data_east_v_epyx" /> This echoed the analysis in ''Atari v. Amusement World'', explaining that the variety of possible expression was limited by the technology, thus raising the likelihood that any game's expressive elements would merge with the idea.<ref name=":12" /> Since the two games were not similar enough to constitute copyright infringement, the question of access became moot.<ref name=":9" /> The court further explained that "the visual depiction of karate matches is subject to the constraints inherent in the sport of karate itself," and many of the similar elements are "indispensable, or at least standard" to creating a karate game.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Mullin|first=Joe|date=2016-12-14|title=Arista beats Cisco's $335M copyright claim with an unusual defense|url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/12/jury-clears-arista-of-ciscos-335m-copyright-claim/|access-date=2022-02-06|website=Ars Technica|language=en-us}}</ref> Since many of these features are stereotypical of karate, they are not protected by copyright.<ref name=":8" /> After excluding unprotectable elements, such as functional rules and generic scenes related to karate, the court determined that the remainder of the games were not substantially similar.''<ref name=":22" />'' Judge Trott further stated that a 17.5 year old male would not find the games similar, contradicting the finding of the lower court.<ref name=":9" /> The appeal ruled that the district court had erred in their analysis, and ordered the injunction to be lifted.<ref name="data_east_v_epyx" />

== Effects ==
{{main|Software:Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp.}}
The case was among several early rulings that applied the ''scènes à faire'' principle to video games, and became cited in further cases.''<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last=Quagliariello|first=John|date=2019|title=Applying Copyright Law to Videogames: Litigation Strategies for Lawyers|url=https://harvardjsel.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2019/05/HLS204.pdf|journal=Harvard Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law|volume=10|pages=263|via=}}</ref>'' In the 1994 case ''[[Software:Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp.|Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp.]]'', Data East found itself defending a claim that their game [[Software:Fighter's History (video game)|''Fighter's History'']] had violated the copyright in ''[[Software:Street Fighter II|Street Fighter II]].<ref name=":22" />'' Data East responded to [[Company:Capcom|Capcom]] that any similarities between the two games were inherent to the [[Software:Fighting game|fighting game]] genre and not protected by copyright, and moreover, ''Karate Champ'' was the first game in the genre.<ref name=":5">{{Cite journal|date=January 1994|title=Capcom sues Data East over Street Fighter II|url=https://archive.org/details/play-meter-volume-20-number-1-january-1994/Play%20Meter%20-%20Volume%2020%2C%20Number%201%20-%20January%201994%20%28Compressed%29/page/16/mode/1up|journal=Play Meter|volume=20|issue=1|pages=16}}</ref> Data East successfully defended the claim, ironically by using similar reasoning that had been used against them in ''Data East v. Epyx''.<ref name=":22" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Oxford |first=Nadia |date=2005-12-14 |title=History of Videogame Lawsuits from 1UP.com |url=http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=2&cId=3146206 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060526030334/http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=2&cId=3146206 |archive-date=2006-05-26 |access-date=2023-01-08 |website=1UP.com}}</ref> As a result, most lawsuits about alleged video game clones were settled between the mid-1990s through to the mid-2000s.''<ref name=":2" />''

The ''Data East v. Epyx'' case was also cited in ''Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation,'' where the court said that unprotected expression could not support any finding of infringement.<ref name="applemicrosoft">{{cite court|litigants=Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.|court=9th Cir.|reporter=F.3d|vol=35|opinion=1435|pinpoint=|date=1994|url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/35/1435/605245/|quote=|accessdate=2018-02-08}}</ref> Even outside the software industry, ''Pasillas v. McDonald's Corporation'' cited the legal principles from ''Data East v. Epyx'' to explain that infringement cannot be proved through similarity between standard elements.<ref name="pasillasmcdonald">{{cite court|litigants=Pasillas v. McDonald's Corporation|court=9th Cir.|reporter=F.2d|vol=927|opinion=440|pinpoint=|date=1991|url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/927/440/110128/|quote=|accessdate=2018-02-08}}</ref>

== Legacy ==
This case is remembered for building on the legal reasoning in ''[[Atari v. Amusement World]]'', where the courts first applied the ''scènes à faire'' principle to video games''.<ref name=":22" /><ref name=":2" />'' It's also an early example of the courts dissecting the similarities between two video games, before determining if the similar elements are protected by copyright.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Bierman |first=Ellen |date=1992-01-01 |title=It Walks Like a Duck, Talks Like a Duck, . . . But Is It a Duck? Making Sense of Substantial Similarity Law as It Applies to User Interfaces |url=https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sulr/vol16/iss1/4 |journal=Seattle University Law Review |volume=16 |issue=1 |pages=319 |issn=1078-1927}}</ref> At the time, the ''Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal'' observed that the decision would provide more clarity about what similarities are considered infringing, bringing video games into conformity with other audio-visual works.<ref name=":9" /> The ''University of Pennsylvania Law Review'' noted that these early rulings were shaped by the technical constraints of the era, excluding similarities that might result from the limited range of expression in early video game technology.<ref name=":12" />

Contrasting it with later rulings, intellectual property attorney Jack Schecter noted it among early cases where "courts seemed to have a difficult time conceiving of copyright protection that would extend beyond the strict confines of the art and sound assets included in a game."<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|last=Schecter|first=Jack|date=December 21, 2012|title=The legalities of the clone wars: Who will come out on top in EA vs Zynga?|url=https://www.pocketgamer.biz/feature/47277/the-legalities-of-the-clone-wars-who-will-come-out-on-top-in-ea-vs-zynga/|access-date=2022-02-06|website=pocketgamer.biz}}</ref> Swatee Mehta noted that the intrinsic-extrinsic test used by the Ninth Circuit almost always led to a finding of non-infringement.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Mehta|first=Swatee|date=2000|title= Tiffany Design, Inc. v. Reno-Tahoe Specialty, Inc.|url=https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/1117208/files/fulltext.pdf|journal=Berkeley Technology Law Journal Annual Review of Law and Technology|volume=15|pages= 49–65}}</ref> John Quagliariello similarly argued that this was one of several cases that made it near impossible for a video game copyright holder to win a lawsuit against a potential infringer, especially considering the cost of a lawsuit versus the risk of an unfavorable ruling.<ref name=":2" /> Attorney Stephen C. McArthur mentioned it among several rulings that were permissive of clones, until that pattern changed in 2012.''<ref name=":22" />''

Legal scholars have determined that the permissive approach to video game clones shifted in 2012, with the rulings in ''[[Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc.]]'' and ''[[Spry Fox, LLC v. Lolapps, Inc.]]''<ref name=":22" /><ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3" /> Courts have noted the increased graphical power of modern video game platforms, which opens up new possibilities for artistic expression compared to early cases such as ''Data East v. Epyx'', when it was harder to express an idea in new ways.<ref name=":12" />

==See also==
* Analytic dissection
* [[Social:Scènes à faire|Scènes à faire doctrine]]
* Substantial similarity
* Idea-expression divide
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20090417051630/http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/451837 Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp.]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}


== External links ==
* Ruling: [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5941890015361159855 ''Data East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc.'', 862 F. 2d 204 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit (1988)]
* [http://www.patentarcade.com/2005/07/case-data-east-v-epyx-9th-cir-1988-c.html ''Data East v. Epyx''] at [http://www.patentarcade.com/ Patent Arcade]

[[Category:Copyright infringement of software]]
[[Category:Video game clones]]

{{Sourceattribution|Data East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc.}}