Source: http://patentarcade.com/tag/u-s-district-court
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 18:41:25+00:00

Document:
Fenner Investments, Ltd. v. Microsoft et al.
United States District Court for E.D. Tex.
This case revolved around Fenner Investment’s U.S. Patent No. 6,297,751, which describes a low-voltage joystick port interface.
Prior art joysticks used resistor-like devices called potentiometers to produce analog signals. These analog signals had to be transformed into digital signals to be read by a computer. An interface circuit interpreted the joystick’s analog signal to produce a responsive digital pulse which had a pulse width that corresponded to the joystick position. The computer would measure the width of the digital pulse to figure out the position.
Newly developed computer and video game systems require lower voltage (prior art joysticks and computers were electronically compatible, both operating at 5 volts), so they didn’t work with the interface circuits/joysticks anymore. Fenner’s patent solved that problem by creating an interface circuit that allowed the old, higher voltage joysticks to be used with the newer, lower voltage systems.
Fenner alleged that Microsoft’s Xbox controller and Nintendo’s Wii and GameCube controllers infringed on its patent. These controllers contain thumbsticks that operate by initial analog signals being translated into 8- or 10-bit digital signals (or “words”) that get sent to the console processor which interprets the digital word to calculate the corresponding thumbstick position.
Basically, Fenner’s invention works so that analog signals are represented by the width of a variation (pulse) in a digital signal, whereas defendants’ products require the full 8- or 10-bit digital word (made up of 1’s and 0’s) to give the joystick position. As an example of a digital word, “01100000” shows a two cycle “pulse” occurring toward the beginning of the 8-bit word.
Fenner argued that the defendants infringed simply because the accused products create a pulse with a width that can be measured and, based on the pulses, a joystick position can be determined. The defendants argued that the pulse widths alone are irrelevant and instead the entire digital word is necessary to determine the joystick position.
The main issue here turned on the claim construction of the pulse width “representing” joystick position and whether that meant providing some information about the position (Fenner’s argument) or providing all information necessary to determine the position (Defendants’ argument). Relying on intrinsic evidence (i.e., the patent claims, specification, and its prosecution history before the United States Patent & Trademark Office), the court found that the claim required that the pulse must communicate all the necessary information to determine the specific joystick coordinate position.
Fenner also argued that “represent” meant that pulse width could be combined with other data, such as the position of the pulse in the 8- or 10-bit word, to indicate joystick position. The court rejected this argument based on the prosecution history and claim amendment language which indicated that only pulse width, not other data, was to be used to determine joystick position.
Using the above claim construction, the court found summary judgment appropriate because there was no genuine issue of material fact. Because Fenner’s patent relied on a pulse width alone to relate the joystick position, the defendants had not infringed on the patent. This is because, in the accused devices, the pulse widths alone are meaningless and say nothing about joystick position. The pulse widths simply describe the bits. It’s the 8 or 10 bits, read together, that actually give the position. A signal representing the series of two, three, or more “1’s” in a row does express “a single variation of the logical level of a signal,” but it doesn’t give any position information without the accompanying “0’s” that also make up the digital word.
Generally, patent protection is limited to what’s written in the patent claims. However, to ensure fair protection of patents, the doctrine of equivalents states that a patent may be protected even when another product or process does not literally infringe on the patent, as long as the infringing product or process is deemed to be equivalent. The doctrine of equivalents was formed so that copycats could not avoid patent infringement simply by making minor or trivial variations to the claims. For the doctrine to apply, the accused product must perform “substantially the same function in substantially the same way with substantially the same result” (referred to as the function-way-result, or FWR, test).
Fenner argued that the doctrine applied because the production of binary encoded numbers was equivalent to the production of pulse widths for determining joystick position. The court determined that Fenner’s interpretation wrongly wrote the “pulse limitation” out of the claim and disregarded the “way” part of the test by being so broad that it would include any digital signal no matter what “way” that it communicated position. The court further found that Fenner failed to show equivalence in the “way” the devices operate because in Fenner’s device, only the pulses, or “cycles of variation,” are used to determine joystick position whereas in the defendants’ devices the periods of no variation are just as necessary as the periods of variation (for creating an 8- or 10-bit digital word) to determine position.
The court also faced a second issue of claim construction concerning the definition of the device parts, because certain parts of the accused products had to operate at a lower voltage in order to be infringing.
The ‘751 patent claims required the interface circuit between the joystick and processor to operate at a lower voltage than the joystick. In the defendants’ accused products, only the processor core, or central processing unit (CPU), operates at a lower voltage than the joystick. Fenner argued that the periphery of the processor could be included in the interface circuit, while the defendants argued that the processor included the CPU and its peripherals, both separate from the interface circuit. The claim construction then turned on whether “processor” meant the entire processor chip or just the processor core. Using extrinsic definitions as well as the context of the claim, the court held that “processor” should be defined as “the CPU along with its peripheral circuitry.” Fenner had agreed that such a definition would preclude any issues of triable fact, so summary judgment was appropriate.Read the full opinion here.
United States District Court for N.D. Cal.
Zynga Game Network, whose settlement with CLZ Concepts we just commented on, hasn’t wasted any time in jumping into another lawsuit. On June 2, 2009, Zynga brought a trademark infringement suit against John Does 1-5. We are obtaining the complaint and will update this post once we’ve had a chance to review it. We’ll keep you updated as we get more information.
Case Update: Fenner Investments v. Microsoft et al.
Fenner Investments Ltd. v. Microsoft et al.
As you may recall this case consisted of a claim by Fenner that defendants had infringed on its U.S. Patent No. 6,297,751 for a low voltage joystick port interface. Basically, the patented technology was a way to hook up old joysticks to new computers (see Bloomberg.com’s brief synopsis of the case). On 3/16/09, the day before the jury trial was to begin, the court entered an order granting summary judgment to defendants Microsoft and Nintendo (Sony, an original named defendant, was dropped from the suit 2/26/07), finding no patent infringement. For more information regarding the case conclusion, click here. The court issued its full opinion and final order of summary judgment on 6/3/09. Further analysis of the opinion is forthcoming once we obtain and review the final order.
New Case: Yahoo! Inc. v. National Football League Players Association, Inc. et al.
Yahoo! Inc. v. Nat’l Football League Players Association, Inc. et al.
United States District Court for D. Minn.
Continuing the trend of fantasy sports litigation, Yahoo! Inc., has filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory judgment against the defendants National Football League Players Association, Inc., and the National Football League Players Incorporated (collectively hereinafter “NFL Players”).
The NFL Players Association acts as the exclusive collective bargaining representative for active players in the NFL. The players assign their rights to the Association which, in turn, grants NFL Players Inc. exclusive use of the Group Licensing Rights. Yahoo! provides NFL fantasy football game services to participants throughout the United States. This includes tracking, compiling and posting publicly available NFL player statistics and information to aid game participants in making decisions.
Prior to the upcoming 2009/2010 season, Yahoo! had a licensing agreement with NFL Players to pay for using the statistics as well as “names, likenesses (including, without limitation, numbers), pictures, photographs, voices, facsimile signatures and/or biographical information” of NFL players. However, the license expired in March 2009 and was not renewed. On April 28, 2009 the same court hearing this case decided in CBS Interactive, Inc. v. Nat. Football League Players Inc., 70:08-cv-0597-ADM-SRN (D. Minn.), that the provider of a fantasy football game did not require a license from NFL Players to use player names, statistics, and other information in operation of the game. After that decision, Yahoo! contacted NFL Players to get confirmation that it would not be sued for similarly using the statistics but NFL Players refused to provide confirmation since they were appealing the court’s ruling.
If Yahoo!’s actions did violate those rights, federal copyright law preempts the trademark right or right of publicity by dedicating information used in a fantasy sports games business to the public.
A full version of the complaint can be found here.
On February 24, 2009, Square Enix settled another lawsuit. According to its press release, the lawsuit named at least four national wholesalers of unlicensed sword replicas and their principals that have infringed Square Enix’s FINAL FANTASY® franchise of videogames and CG-animated film, specifically its copyright and trademark rights in the swords.
WHAT?!?! They are actually admitting to the “I wouldn’t have done it if I knew I would have been caught” defense?!?! So it’s ok to infringe other’s intellectual property rights as long as you’re not caught? Great. Nice one. Way to fall on that sword you were selling. In any event, the consent judgment includes $600k payment to Square Enix, so yes, the infringers WILL think twice about doing this again.
In another press release dated Feb. 12, 2008, the lawsuit was noted to have been filed and was “a result of cooperation with the United States Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Patrol, whose agents seized a crate of counterfeit replica swords.” Nice to hear our DHS guys are on the job. Keep up the good work.
Mr. Wright is a shareholder of Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. in Washington, D.C., where he practices intellectual property law with a concentration on prosecution, litigation and counseling in patent and copyright matters, especially in the electrical and computer areas, including Internet and e-commerce. Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. is dedicated to excellence in the specialized practice of intellectual property law, including patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret, computer, franchise and unfair competition law. The firm has over 90 attorneys and agents in its Chicago, Washington, DC, Boston and Portland, OR offices.
www.bannerwitcoff.com © Copyright 2008 Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. All Rights Reserved. No distribution or reproduction of this issue or any portion thereof is allowed without written permission of the publisher except by recipient for internal use only within recipient’s own organization. The opinions expressed in this publication are for the purpose of fostering productive discussions of legal issues and do not constitute the rendering of legal counseling or other professional services. No attorney-client relationship is created, nor is there any offer to provide legal services, by the publication and distribution of this advisory. This publication is designed to provide reasonably accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is provided with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, counseling, accounting or other professional services. If legal advice or other professional assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person in the relevant area should be sought.
On Sept. 26, 2008, the court ruled that MDY must pay Blizzard damages in the amount of $6M, i.e, $6,000,000.00. At the next hearing, scheduled for January 2009, the judge will determine whether MDY founder Michael Donnelly is personally liable for damages and whether MDY violated the DMCA when it manipulated codes to keep Glider under WoW’s radar.
Looks like Blizzard has won round 1 of the WoWGlider/MMOGlider lawsuit, with the District Court ruling that MDY’s bot application violates Blizzard’s copyrights, and also causes tortious interference with Blizzard’s other paying customers.
On July 14, 2008, the U.S. District Court in Arizona issued an order granting summary judgment for Blizzard, developers of the World of Warcraft (WoW) massively-multiplayer online role-playing game, on their tortious interference, contributory copyright infringement, and vicarious copyright infringement claims against MDY, developers of a “bot” known as Glider that allows players to cheat in WoW. We had previously commented on this case when Blizzard initially filed this lawsuit against MDY.
As to their tortious interference claim (which admittedly sounds more exciting than copyright infringement), Blizzard prevailed on the argument that MDY’s development of Glider induces WoW users to breach WoW’s EULA and TOU. Unlike copyright infringement, tortious interference with contract is a question of state law rather than federal law, and in applying Arizona law, the district court found it particularly significant that MDY “actively promotes the use of Glider even though it knows that using Glider breaches the TOU.” See Order at 22. In addition, the district court noted that “MDY does not dispute that Glider consumes more Blizzard resources than any other bot because of its sophisticated anti-detection features, that Blizzard must divert resources from game development to combat Glider, and that Blizzard has received numerous complaints from WoW players regarding other players’ use of Glider.” Id. at 23. Finally, the district court found that MDY’s conduct amounted to improper interference within the meaning of Arizona law. Id. at 26. Considering all these factors together, the district court concluded that MDY’s distribution of the Glider bot indeed constituted tortious interference with Blizzard’s TOU for WoW.
MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. et al.United States District Court, District of ArizonaCase No. 2:2006cv02555, Filed October 25, 2006 On October 25, 2006, MDY Industries, LLC (“MDY”) filed a declaratory judgment action against Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. (“Blizzard”) and Vivendi, SA (“Vivendi”), Blizzard’s parent company, in the U.S. District Court in Arizona seeking, among other things, a decree from the court that MDY has not violated any of Blizzard’s intellectual property rights relating to the “World of Warcraft” video game. MDY sells a software application called “WoW Glider” (also known as “Glider”) that essentially automates game play in Blizzard’s World of Warcraft. This automation, however, violates Blizzard’s Terms of Service for World of Warcraft, a fact that MDY actually admits in the “Frequently Asked Questions” portion of the Glider website. See http://mmoglider.com/FAQ.aspx#G3. In addition to allowing gamers to feel like lawless rebels, Glider appeals to World of Warcraft players because World of Warcraft is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) in which players must spend a great deal of time playing in order to “level up” their characters. Although it would seem strange that gamers would want to find a way to play less, the leveling in World of Warcraft is really only a part of the game, and a tedious part at that. Indeed, once a player reaches the maximum level, he or she can begin playing the “end game” content that is typically more challenging and dynamic than the other game content. Moreover, in addition to automating leveling, Glider also automates some of the other more tedious tasks in World of Warcraft, such as “grinding” reputation and “farming” gold, by automatically and repeatedly killing certain computer-controlled enemies. Glider accomplishes this automation by simulating the keystrokes and mouse movement that would normally be the control input from the player. Thus, instead of playing World of Warcraft for hours to level, grind, or farm, a player can configure Glider to perform whatever tasks he or she desires, and then leave Glider to play accordingly. As Blizzard sees it, however, Glider allows players to cheat by gaining an unfair advantage over others, thus detracting from everyone else’s gaming experience. Unfortunately for Blizzard, Glider was more than a mere demon that could be baninshed, and so they resorted to legal action to stop this alleged cheating. According to MDY’s complaint, representatives for Blizzard and Vivendi appeared unannounced, (as if by magic?), at the private residence of Michael Donnelly, the sole member of MDY according to Blizzard, on the morning of October 25, 2006. At this confrontation, the Blizzard and Vivendi representatives allegedly accused MDY of copyright infringement, Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) violations, and interference with the contractual relationships between Blizzard and World of Warcraft users. The Blizzard and Vivendi representatives also presented Donnelly with a complaint against him and MDY that included all of these charges, and threatened to file this complaint in a federal court in California if he did not comply with their demands. In imminent apprehension of being sued, MDY brought this declaratory judgment action against Blizzard and Vivendi the same day. Notwithstanding whether Glider’s violation of the Terms of Service for World of Warcraft is interference with contractual relationships, the real issue in this lawsuit is whether Blizzard can prevent MDY from distributing Glider. Indeed, in February 2007, Blizzard filed an answer to MDY’s complaint in which Blizzard asserted counterclaims against MDY seeking injunctive relief and money damages. In these counterclaims, Blizzard argued that it is entitled to an injunction and money damages against MDY based on, among other things, copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and trafficking in technology designed for the purpose of circumventing copyright protection systems in violation of the DMCA. MDY filed an answer to Blizzard’s counterclaims in March 2007 in which MDY denied most of Blizzard’s accusations and raised various affirmative defenses to all of Blizzard’s counterclaims. As of August 2007, this case is in discovery under a protective order and will remain in fact discovery until January 25, 2008. For now, World of Warcraft players can still use Glider to do their virtual dirty work (as long as they are willing to risk being banned from World of Warcraft for a Terms of Service violation, that is).Thanks to Rajit Kapur for his assistance with the preparation of this case summary.
Today the United States Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit decision in Ebay Inc. v. Mercexchange LLC, holding that injunctive relief is to be granted in patent cases using the same traditional test as in any other case, i.e., by weighing the following four factors: (1) irreparable injury suffered by the plaintiff; (2) remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.
Interesting dicta indicates that the Court takes no position as to whether an injunction should issue in this case or any other case, and that there are circumstances where a patent owner who is not practicing his/her patent (patent troll?) may still be entitled to an injunction.
In a newly filed lawsuit, Lucent claims that the Xbox 360 infringes its patent on MPEG-2 decoding. At the center of the dispute is Patent No. 5,227,878, “Adaptive Coding and Decoding of Frames and Fields of Video,” issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to Lucent on July 19, 1993, according to court papers filed by the company in U.S. District Court in San Diego.
a means responsive to the digital video input signal for producing a field frame coding type signal which directs a selected one, but not both, of the frame coding means or the field coding means to code the digital video input signal.
From Form 10-Q, dated 5/10/05, as filed with the SEC.
International Gamco, Inc. v. Multimedia Games (PENDING) S.D. Cal.
International Gamco, Inc. International Gamco, Inc., or Gamco, claiming certain rights in United States Patent No. 5,324,035, or the ‘035 Patent, brought suit on May 25, 2004 against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, claiming that the Company’s central determinant system, as operated in the New York State Lottery, infringes the ‘035 Patent. The Company currently sublicenses the right to practice the technology stated in the ‘035 Patent in Native American gaming jurisdictions in the United States, pursuant to an agreement between it and Bally Gaming, Inc. Bally obtained the right to sublicense those rights to the Company from Oasis Technologies, Inc., or Oasis, a previous owner of the ‘035 Patent.
In a decision with ramifications for reverse engineering of software, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit has affirmed a lower court’s decision to bar “add-on” technology being used to mirror a popular online gaming network.
According to the court, California-based Blizzard Entertainment Inc.’s end-user license agreement was enforceable and had been infringed by copycat online gaming organization BnetD.net and its creators.
EFF website here has more info.
Universal City Studios v. Nintendo Co. Ltd.
Tanks, soldiers, countless helicopters, and even Godzilla were no match for King Kong, so how did Nintendo manage to stop the giant gorilla?
The arcade game “Donkey Kong” was a quick success for Nintendo. The star of the game is the formidable yet humorous gorilla, who climbs buildings, hurls barrels and fireballs, all the while dragging along a blond damsel whom Mario must attempt to rescue. Gamers may have loved Donkey Kong, but Universal saw far too much resemblance to the 1933 classic film “King Kong,” for which Universal owned trademarks for the name, character, and story. Universal brought suit against Nintendo for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, and for dilution of a trademark under New York’s anti-dilution act. When Nintendo’s summary judgment motion was granted in Southern District of New York, Universal appealed to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the district court. Even if Universal validly owned the trademark to King Kong, and the mark had acquired the “secondary meaning” required to be the basis of a successful action (issues not yet resolved at trial), the court nonetheless held that Nintendo’s Donkey Kong did not infringe upon the trademark. While there were undoubtedly resemblances between the two, there was no evidence to show that consumers would confuse Donkey Kong and King Kong. Universal introduced as evidence videogame reviews which shows that Donkey Kong’s theme “loosely evoked the film.” However, the Court held that the decisive question in trademark infringement is, “whether there is any likelihood that an appreciable number of ordinarily prudent purchasers are likely to be misled, or indeed simply confused, as to the source of the goods in question.” Mushroom Markers, Inc. v. R.G. Barry Corp., 580 F.2d 44, 47 (2nd Cir. 1978). Thus, even if purchasers are reminded of classic film, the trademark action would not succeed unless they actually thought they were buying a videogame sold by Universal.
Universal sought to show that the names were substantially confusing by conducting a telephone survey of 150 arcade and bowling alley owners who had purchased or leased a Donkey Kong game. 18% of the respondents answered “Yes” when asked, “To the best of your knowledge, was the Donkey Kong game made with the approval or under the authority of the people who produce the King Kong movies?” Universal argued that this survey proved confusion, yet the Court disagreed, reasoning that the question did not prove confusion with the item trademarked. Universal owned the name, character, and story of King Kong, but did not claim ownership rights to the film itself, thus the question was unfair because it did not connect Donkey Kong to the name King Kong. Further, the Court found the question to be unfairly leading, and that Universal’s survey was defective because it surveyed previous buyers instead of potential buyers.
Universal introduced further evidence, a letter from Nintendo stating that there was no connection between Donkey Kong and King Kong, to show that Nintendo implicitly admitted consumer confusion by writing the letter. The Court rejected this argument. Since the letter was written after the commencement of the lawsuit, it was clearly only meant to cut short Nintendo’s legal troubles. Besides, these statements would not be a substitute for actual evidence showing that there was no confusion about Donkey Kong’s source.
The Court also commented that Nintendo’s Donkey Kong paraphernalia, marketed separately from the videogame, had the potential to cause genuine confusion with King Kong. However, this argument was not raised by Universal, and the Court noted that it probably would not have been successful in this case. The videogame itself was the dominant marketing vehicle for any Donkey Kong toys, and these items had the same “total concept and feel” as the videogame. Therefore, the paraphernalia were just as unlikely to be confused as was the Donkey Kong game.
Finally, the Court addressed Universal’s request for an injunction under New York anti-dilution law. The Court used the same rationale to deny the injunction against Donkey Kong. Universal had failed to offer evidence that Donkey Kong had an “adverse effect on King Kong’s reputation” or would “deprive the mark of its distinctiveness.” Therefore, an injunction would be inappropriate, and the summary judgment in favor of Nintendo was affirmed.
Thanks to Brian Brisnehan for his assistance with the preparation of this case summary.
In this early case regarding copyright protection of video games, the court addresses the issue of determining the scope of copyright protection in an audiovisual work such as a video game. The question here: Did North American Phillips’ game K.C.MUNCHKIN infringe Atari’s copyright in the game PAC-MAN? The court, noting that a game is not protectible by copyright “as such,” stated that video games are protectible “at least to a limited extent [insofar as] the particular form in which it is expressed provides something new or additional over the idea.” The court went on to conclude that Atari had a likelihood of success on the merits of copyright infringement, and granted a preliminary injunction preventing North American Phillips from infringing Atari’s copyright by producing the K.C.MUNCHKIN game.
Indicating that video games “appeal to an audience that is fairly undiscriminating insofar as their concern about more subtle differences in artistic expression,” this case is useful in that it indicates that infringement can occur when the similarity between two works relates to matter which constitutes a substantial portion of copyright holder’s work, i.e., matter which is of value to the copyright holder, regardless of the amount of the alleged infringing work that is similar (hmmm, sounds similar to a fair use factor). Once that determination was made, the court had no trouble concluding that Atari had a good chance of success on the merits in their copyright infringement claim. The fact that North American Phillips advertised K.C.MUNHKIN as a PAC-MAN-type game probably didn’t hurt either.
The copyrighted version of PAC-MAN is an electronic arcade maze-chase game. Very basically, the game “board,” which appears on a television-like screen, consists of a fixed maze, a central character (expressed as a “gobbler”), four pursuit characters (expressed as “ghost monsters”), several hundred evenly spaced pink dots which line the pathways of the maze, four enlarged pink dots (“power capsules”) approximately located in each of the maze’s four corners, and various colored fruit symbols which appear near the middle of the maze during the play of the game.
Using a “joy stick,” the player guides the gobbler through the maze, consuming pink dots along the way. The monsters, which roam independently within the maze, chase the gobbler. Each play ends when a monster catches the gobbler, and after three plays, the game is over. If the gobbler consumes a power capsule, the roles reverse temporarily: the gobbler turns into the hunter, and the monsters become vulnerable. The object of the game is to score as many points as possible by gobbling dots, power capsules, fruit symbols, and monsters.
The PAC-MAN maze has a slightly vertical rectangular shape, and its geometric configuration is drawn in bright blue double lines. Centrally located on the left and right sides of the maze is a tunnel opening. To evade capture by a pursuing monster, the player can cause the central character to exit through one opening and re-enter through the other on the opposite side. In video game parlance this concept is called a “wraparound.” In the middle is a rectangular box (“corral”) which has a small opening on the upper side. A scoring table, located across the top of the maze, displays in white the first player’s score on the left, the high score to date in the middle, and the second player’s score on the right. If a player successfully consumes all of the dots, the entire maze flashes alternately blue and white in victory, and a new maze, replenished with dots, appears on the screen. When the game ends a bright red “game over” sign appears below the corral.
At the start of the game, the gobbler character is located centrally near the bottom of the maze. That figure is expressed as a simple yellow dot, somewhat larger than the power capsules, with a V-shaped aperture which opens and closes in mechanical fashion like a mouth as it travels the maze. Distinctive “gobbling” noises accompany this action. If fate (or a slight miscalculation) causes the gobbler to fall prey to one of the monsters, the action freezes, and the gobbler is deflated, folding back on itself, making a sympathetic whining sound, and disappearing with a star-burst.
The four monster characters are identical except that one is red, one blue, one turquoise, and one orange. They are about equal in size to the gobbler, but are shaped like bell jars. The bottom of each figure is contoured to stimulate three short appendages which move as the monster travels about the maze. Their most distinctive feature is their highly animated eyes, which appear as large white circles with blue irises and which “look” in the direction the monster is moving. At the start of each play, the monsters are located side-by-side in the corral, bouncing back and forth until each leaves through the opening. Unlike the gobbler, they do not consume the dots, but move in a prearranged pattern about the maze at a speed approximately equal to that of the gobbler. When the gobbler consumes a power capsule and the roles reverse, the monsters panic: a siren-like alarm sounds, they turn blue, their eyes contract into small pink dots, a wrinkled “mouth” appears, and they immediately reverse direction (moving at a reduced speed). When this period of vulnerability is about to end, the monsters warn the player by flashing alternately blue and white before returning to their original colors. But if a monster is caught during this time, its body disappears, and its original eyes reappear and race back to the corral. Once in the corral, the monster quickly regenerates and reenters the maze to resume its pursuit of the gobbler.
Throughout the play of PAC-MAN, a variety of distinctive musical sounds comprise the audio component of the game. Those sounds coincide with the various character movements and events occurring during the game and add to the excitement of the play.
North American’s K. C. Munchkin is also a maze-chase game that employs a player-controlled central character (also expressed as a “gobbler”), pursuit characters (also expressed as “ghost monsters”), dots, and power capsules. The basic play of K. C. Munchkin parallels that of PAC-MAN: the player directs the gobbler through the maze consuming dots and avoiding capture by the monsters; by gobbling a power capsule, the player can reverse the roles; and the ultimate goal is to accumulate the most points by gobbling dots and monsters.
K. C. Munchkin’s maze also is rectangular, has two tunnel exits and a centrally located corral, and flashes different colors after the gobbler consumes all of the dots. But the maze, drawn in single, subdued purple lines, is more simple in overall appearance. Because it appears on a home television screen, the maze looks broader than it is tall. Unlike that in PAC-MAN, the maze has one dead-end passageway, which adds an element of risk and strategy. [FN1] The corral is square rather than rectangular *612 and rotates ninety degrees every two or three seconds, but serves the same purpose as the corral in PAC-MAN. The scoring table is located below the maze and, as in PAC-MAN, has places on the left and right for scores for two players.[FN2] But instead of simply registering the high score in the middle, the K. C. Munchkin game displays in flashing pink and orange a row of question marks where the high scorer can register his or her name.
FN1. The K. C. Munchkin home video game has several modes with an almost indefinite variety of mazes. One mode, for example, employs a constantly changing configuration, in another, the player can build his or her own maze, and in yet another, the maze disappears when the gobbler moves.
FN2. Before any player registers points, the PAC-MAN scoring table displays in white “1 UP” and “2 UP” where the scores will appear. The K. C. Munchkin game simply displays “0000” in orange for the first player and in white for the second.
K. C. Munchkin’s three ghost monsters appear similar in shape and movement to their PAC-MAN counterparts.[FN4] They have round bodies (approximately equal in size to the gobbler) with two short horns or antennae, eyes, and three appendages on the bottom. The eyes are not as detailed as those of the PAC-MAN monsters, but they are uniquely similar in that they also “look” in the direction in which the monster is moving. Although slightly longer, the “legs” also move in a centipede-like manner as the monster roams about the maze. The similarity becomes even more pronounced when the monsters move vertically because their antennae disappear and their bodies assume the more bell jar-like shape of the PAC-MAN monsters. Moreover, the monsters are initially stationed inside the corral (albeit in a piggyback rather than a side-by-side arrangement) and exit into the maze as soon as play commences.
K. C. Munchkin’s expression of the role reversal also parallels that in PAC-MAN. When the gobbler consumes one of the power capsules, the vulnerable monsters turn purple and reverse direction, moving at a slightly slower speed. If caught by the gobbler, a monster “vanishes”: its body disappears and only white “eyes” and “feet” remain to indicate its presence. Instead of returning directly to the corral to regenerate, the ghost-like figure continues to wander about the maze, but does not affect the play.[FN5] Only if the rotating corral happens to open up toward the monster as it travels one of the adjacent passageways will the monster re-enter the corral to be regenerated. This delay in regeneration allows the gobbler more time to clear the maze of dots. When the period of vulnerability is about to end, each monster flashes its original color as a warning.
FN5. During this time, the white eyes disappear and reappear in alternating sequence with the reappearance and disappearance of the monster’s body silhouetted in white.
There are only twelve dots in K. C. Munchkin as opposed to over two hundred dots in PAC-MAN. Eight of those dots are white; the other four are power capsules, distinguished by their constantly changing color and the manner in which they blink. In K. C. Munchkin, the dots are randomly spaced, whereas in PAC-MAN, the dots are uniformly spaced. Furthermore, in K. C. *613 Munchkin, the dots are rectangular and are always moving. As the gobbler munches more dots, the speed of the remaining dots progressively increases, and the last dot moves at the same speed as the gobbler. In the words of the district court, “the last dot … cannot be caught by overtaking it; it must be munched by strategy.” At least initially, one power capsule is located in each of the maze’s four corners, as in PAC-MAN.
Finally, K. C. Munchkin has a set of sounds accompanying it which are distinctive to the whole line of Odyssey home video games. Many of these sounds are dissimilar to the sounds which are played in the arcade form of PAC-MAN.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.