Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp.

Judge William H. Orrick Jr. applied a legal principle known as the merger doctrine, where courts will not grant copyright protection where it would effectively give someone a monopoly over an idea.Years later, Data East found themselves on the other side of a similar dispute, and the court determined that the contents of Fighter's History were legally permissible.[8] Data East called on expert witness Bill Kunkel, a game journalist who testified in Atari v. Philips that not all copying is infringing, such as the similarity between K.C.[10] By the late 1980s, courts began to take a more permissive approach with video game clones, deciding that many elements of creativity cannot be protected, such as generic concepts, functional rules, and scènes à faire.Judge William H. Orrick Jr. stated that there was strong evidence that Data East set out to imitate the success of Street Fighter II, noting similarities such as a "Chun-Li clone" (referring to Feilin) and several comparable special moves.[13] Judge Orrick applied a legal principle known as the merger doctrine, where courts will not extend copyright protection if it effectively gives someone a monopoly over an idea.[14] Courts continued this approach for many years, ruling in favor of most video game clones until enforcing some limits in the 2012 case Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive.[1] Attorney Stephen C. McArthur mentioned it among several rulings that were permissive of clones, such as Atari v. Amusement World and Data East v. Epyx, a pattern that changed in 2012 with Tetris v. Xio and Spry Fox, LLC v. Lolapps, Inc.[8]
Memorandum Decision and Order dated August 18, 1994
United States District Court for the Northern District of CaliforniaWilliam H. Orrick Jr.CapcomData EastFighter's HistorycopyrightStreet Fighter IIdesign documentsdamagespreliminary injunctiondistributionmerger doctrineAtari v. PhilipsPac-Mangenericscènes à fairelost their casevideo game cloneTetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc.Spry Fox, LLC v. Lolapps, Inc.fighting gamedesignKenzo TsujimotodistributingK.C. Munchkin!video game clonesData East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc.World Karate ChampionshipKarate ChampChun-Li1UP.comTetris Holding, LLC v. Xio InteractiveAtari v. Amusement WorldSpry Fox, LLC v. Lolapps, IncGameProBerkeley Technology Law JournalUniversity of Pennsylvania Law ReviewShinkiroJun TakeuchiShu TakumiRyozo TsujimotoYoshino AokiTokuro FujiwaraNoritaka FunamizuAtsushi InabaKeiji InafuneHideaki ItsunoAkari KaidaGeorge KamitaniHideki KamiyaAkira KitamuraHiroyuki KobayashiShinji MikamiNaoshi MizutaKinu NishimuraAkira NishitaniTakashi NishiyamaYoshiki OkamotoYoshinori OnoTetsuya ShibataYoko ShimomuraNoboru SugimuraSawaki TakeyasuAkira YasudaAce AttorneyBionic CommandoBreath of FireDarkstalkersDead RisingDevil May CryDino CrisisDragon's DogmaFinal FightGhosts 'n GoblinsLost PlanetMarvel vs. CapcomMega ManMonster HunterOnimushaResident EvilSengoku BasaraStreet FighterViewtiful JoeSubsidiariesCapcom Coin-OpCapcom VancouverClover StudioFlagshipMT FrameworkPanta RheiRE EngineAlph LylaCapcom CupCapcom FiveRed DeadSuleputerBad Dudes Vs. DragonNinjaBurgerTimeDark SealDarwin 4078Glory of HeraclesJake HunterJoe & MacMagical DropMetal MaxSide PocketStreet SlamWindjammersOther gamesAtomic Runner ChelnovBump 'n' JumpBloody WolfKarnovHeavy BarrelLock 'n' ChaseMidnight ResistanceNight SlashersThe Real GhostbustersRing KingRoboCopShadowrunSly SpySpinmasterTumblepopG-ModePaon DPDECO Cassette SystemData East Arcade ClassicsVideo game copyright lawStern Electronics, Inc. v. KaufmanMidway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc.Atari Games Corp. v. OmanLewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.Micro Star v. FormGen Inc.PlagiarismclonesAtari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp.Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.Stardock Systems, Inc. v. ReicheReverse engineeringAtari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America Inc.Sega v. Accolade