MiTek Holdings, Inc v Arce Eng'g Co (11th Cir copyright)

8/14/2019 MiTek Holdings, Inc v Arce Eng'g Co (11th Cir copyright)

1/17


2/17

FN2. This program has also beencalled LayoutPro Layout Programand the FramePro Layout

Program.

FN3. MiTek did not file suit untilafter it had registered its claims ofcopyright in all three versions of theACES program.

Both MiTek and ArcE are in the business ofsupplying products and services to the woodtruss industry. A wood truss is a group ofwood beams, usually triangular in shape,

that supports a roof; the beams in a woodtruss are held together by connector plates.Wood trusses often are not constructed bythe builder, but rather by off-sitefabricators, who build roof trusses tocertain specifications and then deliver themin bulk to building sites. The use of off-sitefabricators reduces construction time as wellas labor costs. Prior to the advent of personal computers, fabricators woulddesign and arrange the wood trusses by

engaging an engineer to obtain the necessarytruss specifications and drawings for theplanned structures. After fabricators beganusing personal computers, layoutprograms,FN4 like the ones at issue in thiscase, were developed to permit fabricators todo their own engineering and related workfor their building designs, therebyeliminating the need to employ an engineer.

FN4. A wood truss layout program

is a computer program thatgraphically draws and places woodtrusses on the walls of a buildingstructure, indicating the size andlocation of the trusses.

[1] In this case, the parties disagree over

whether or not the layout programs aresubstantially similar in a copyrightcontext, but both sides agree that the

programs at issue were written by the sameauthor, Emilio Sotolongo (Sotolongo).FN5In 1988, Sotolongo began working in Miamifor Advanced Computer EngineeringSpecialties, Inc. (Aces), the software armof the Bemax Companies (Bemax).Bemax sold connector plates to the woodtruss industry. Sotolongo was employed byAces to develop a wood truss layout program that depicted three-dimensionalrepresentations of truss layouts.FN6 Version

1 of the ACES program was published inMarch of 1989, upon display of the programat a trade show. ACES Version 1 was wellreceived by the wood truss industry.FN7However, since Version 1 did not have itsown printing functions, Sotolongo wasasked to develop an improved version thatwould permit the user to print the layout.Aces released Version 2 in September of1990. This version not only featured printingcapabilities, but also had expanded memory

capacity and a slightly different screenarrangement.FN8 In March of *1552 1991,ACES Version 3 was published and featuredsome enhanced graphics capabilities.

FN5. Given the subject matter of the programs, roof truss design, it isinevitable that there will besimilarities, particularly in theoutput. Substantial similarity, inthe copyright context, refers to

appropriation by the putativeinfringer of the fundamentalessence or structure of a protectedwork.Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693, 701 (2dCir.1992) (citation omitted).
http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1992218838&ReferencePosition=701http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1992218838&ReferencePosition=701http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1992218838&ReferencePosition=701http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1992218838&ReferencePosition=701http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1992218838&ReferencePosition=701http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1992218838&ReferencePosition=701http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1992218838&ReferencePosition=701http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1992218838&ReferencePosition=701http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1992218838&ReferencePosition=701http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1992218838&ReferencePosition=701http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1992218838&ReferencePosition=701


3/17

FN6. The district court found that[a]t this time, another softwarecompany, Online, had developed a

program known as Trusstar whichused intersecting planes and wasconsidered to be superior to existinglayout programs that could onlydepict truss layouts two-dimensionally. MiTek, 864F.Supp. at 1572. In order to have a better understanding of what Aceswanted to develop, Sotolongo visitedone of Aces's clients, a trussmanufacturer, to observe the

operation of Online's Trusstarprogram firsthand. It was the goal ofAces for Sotolongo to write aprogram that, while utilizing some ofthe same ideas used in Trusstar,would be more user friendly. Thedistrict court found that Sotolongointended on accomplishing this byhaving his program logicallyfollow[ ] the steps a draftsman wouldgo through in developing a layout by

hand. Id.

FN7. As noted by the district court,the market for wood truss layout programs had grown increasinglycompetitive by early 1989, whenlayout programs were beingmarketed by other softwarecompanies, including Online, Alpine,Hydro-Air and Gang-Nail. MiTek,864 F.Supp. at 1572.

FN8. Version 1 featured a three-boxvisual display, whereas Version 2featured a four-box visual display;the extra box was the result of theaddition of a top bar main menu. Theother three boxes are the work space

area, which occupies most of thescreen, the command trees runningdown the right side of the screen, and

a command module running alongthe bottom of the screen.

During the process of developing Version 3of the ACES program, Sotolongo wasapproached by Art Sordo, MiTek's Presidentof Operations, to gauge his interest inworking for MiTek. MiTek wantedSotolongo to compose a new truss layout program that was superior to the ACESprogram. Although MiTek offered Sotolongo

a significant raise, he declined the offer, inlarge part because MiTek made its programmers maintain detailed logs andnotes of the steps taken in writing their programs. Sotolongo testified that hepreferred to work without notes and that heoften would conceptualize programsegments in his mind. Sotolongo advisedAces of the MiTek offer and explained hisreasons for rejecting it. He was concerned,however, with rumors that MiTek was going

to acquire Aces, and he asked Aces aboutthis. Sotolongo was assured that theacquisition was not going to occur, and, as areward for his loyalty, he was given a raise.

Contrary to what Sotolongo was advised,MiTek purchased Aces for $2.5 million onApril 1, 1991. As part of the purchase,MiTek received an assignment of Aces'scopyrights in the layout programs at issue inthis case.FN9 Eugene Toombs, the president

and chief executive officer of MiTek,testified at trial that the reason we paid theprice we did [for Bemax/Aces], very frankly,was because of the software, and he furtherstated that the ACES layout program was thekey to the software. R6-485. After the salewas announced, Sotolongo inquired of

2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1572http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1572http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1572http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1572http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1572http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1572http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1572http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1572http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1572http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1572http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1572http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1572http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1572


4/17

MiTek if its preacquisition offer was stillopen. He was told that it was not, sinceMiTek now had acquired the intellectual

property rights to the ACES program. MiTekdid offer Sotolongo a job, but at a salarylower than that previously offered.

FN9. It is undisputed that Sotolongowrote the three ACES programs as awork-for-hire employee, and headvances no claim that thecopyrights belong to him, not MiTek(via assignment from Aces). See17U.S.C. 201(b) (1996).

At approximately the same time, AntonioArce, one of the principals of ArcE,approached Sotolongo and recruited him tocome work for ArcE. ArcE owned a layout program, but it operated only on HewlettPackard equipment, and ArcE wantedSotolongo to develop a program thatfunctioned in the Microsoft Windows(Windows) environment on InternationalBusiness Machines Corp. (IBM)

compatible computers. Arce testified that hewas aware that Sotolongo had been theprincipal programmer for all three versionsof the ACES program. The ACES programs,however, were written for the MS-DOS(DOS) operating system, which wasstarting to be replaced by the more user-friendly Windows operating system.FN10

FN10. The district court noted that[t]he Aces programs mimicked a

Windows-type program by givingthe user the option of either typing incommands by hand or using a mouseto activate functions of the programthrough the use of pull-downmenus. MiTek, 864 F.Supp. at1574. Although the program

mimicked a Windows-typeenvironment, it still was not as user-friendly, for it lacked certain

distinctive features that generallyappear in application programswritten for Windows. As the districtcourt noted, [t]hese features includethe use of icons instead of words, aframe around the program whichcontains certain elements such as abutton at the top left, scroll bararrows at the right and the bottom,and a menu bar at the top. Id. Inaddition, according to MiTek's expert

witness, [a] Windows program alsohas certain file access features, helpfeatures, and printing featuresdifferent from traditional DOSprograms. Id. For a comparison ofthe main menu bar of the ACESprogram (DOS) with that of TrussPro(Windows), see Appendix A.

Sotolongo accepted ArcE's offer ofemployment. Arce testified that he instructed

Sotolongo to write the new layout programfrom scratch, not to rely on any source orobject code from the ACES programs.FN11 InAugust of 1991, Sotolongo completedTrussPro, and customer testing of theprogram began shortly thereafter. By earlyNovember, Aces had released Version 3 ofits layout program. On November 15, 1991,MiTek filed suit against ArcE and allegedcopyright *1553 infringement.FN12 ArcEcounterclaimed that MiTek's institution of

the action constituted an abuse of processunder Florida law. On December 9, 1993,the district court granted MiTek's motion todismiss ArcE's counterclaim, finding that anabuse of process claim cannot be basedsolely on the filing of an allegedly meritlesscomplaint.FN13 MiTek, 864 F.Supp. at 1574.
http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS201&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS201&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1574http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1574http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1574http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1574http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1574http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1574http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1574http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1574http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1574http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS201&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS201&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1574http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1574http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1574http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1574http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1574


5/17

On that same day, the district court grantedMiTek's motion to waive a jury trial. MiTekelected not to seek actual damages in the

case but rather limited itself to statutorydamages and attorneys' fees pursuant to 17U.S.C. 504(c) & 505. Accordingly, it hadno constitutional or statutory right to a jurytrial. See Cable/Home CommunicationCorp. v. Network Prods., Inc., 902 F.2d 829,852-53 (11th Cir.1990) (noting that in anequitable copyright infringement seekingonly minimum statutory damages andinjunctive relief, there is no constitutionalor statutory right to a jury trial ) (quoting

Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Frith, 645F.2d 6, 7 (5th Cir. Unit B May 1981) (percuriam)). A six-day bench trial was held inDecember, at the conclusion of which thedistrict court ruled in favor of ArcE.

FN11. The district court found thatSotolongo did not refer to any notesregarding the ACES programsbecause he had not taken any, andthat he erased all of the code that he

had relating to the ACES layoutprograms. MiTek, 864 F.Supp. at1574. MiTek presented no evidenceto the contrary.

FN12. Version 1 of the ACES layout program corresponds to claim ofcopyright registration number TX-3-175-806, effective November 6,1991. This registration was latercorrected by supplemental

registration number TX-3-564-806,effective September 3, 1993. Thesupplemental registration was madein order to correct the date of first publication, which originally waslisted incorrectly as February 11,1989. It was corrected to reflect the

correct date of publication, March10, 1989. MiTek, 864 F.Supp. at 1474n. 2.

Version 2 of the ACES program iscovered by claim of copyrightregistration number TX-2-934-789,effective October 3, 1990. Thisregistration later was corrected bysupplemental registration TX-3-175-804, effective November 6,1991. The supplementalregistration was made in order tocorrect a spelling error and to

correct the date of first publicationto September 26, 1990. Theoriginal registration had been filedby Aces prior to its acquisition byMiTek, and it misunderstood theterm date of publication to referto the date of the publication of thefirst version of the program, not tothe date of the publication of theseparate and derivative work.Id. atn. 3.

Version 3 of the ACES layout program corresponds to claim ofcopyright registration number TX-3-175-805, effective November 6,1991. The date of first publicationis listed as March 13, 1991. All ofthese claims of copyright properlywere assigned to MiTek when itacquired Aces. Id. at 1574. Seealso17 U.S.C. 201(d).

FN13. ArcE does not appeal thedistrict court's dismissal of its abuseof process counterclaim. Thus, thatissue is not before us on appeal.

II. ISSUES ON APPEAL

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS504&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS504&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS505&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1990080288&ReferencePosition=852http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1990080288&ReferencePosition=852http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1990080288&ReferencePosition=852http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1990080288&ReferencePosition=852http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1990080288&ReferencePosition=852http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1990080288&ReferencePosition=852http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1981118346&ReferencePosition=7http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1981118346&ReferencePosition=7http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1981118346&ReferencePosition=7http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1981118346&ReferencePosition=7http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1981118346&ReferencePosition=7http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1574http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1574http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1574http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1574http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1574http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS201&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS504&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS504&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS505&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1990080288&ReferencePosition=852http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1990080288&ReferencePosition=852http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1990080288&ReferencePosition=852http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1990080288&ReferencePosition=852http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1981118346&ReferencePosition=7http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1981118346&ReferencePosition=7http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1981118346&ReferencePosition=7http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1574http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1574http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1574http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS201&FindType=L


6/17

On appeal, MiTek asserts that the districtcourt erred in: (1) failing to separate

copyrightable expression in the ACESprogram from the program ideas, because itfailed to perform an abstraction under theAltai FN14 abstraction-filtration-comparisontest or failed to undertake a similar means ofanalysis; (2) finding that the menu andsubmenu command tree structure in theACES program is an uncopyrightableprocess, based on its failure to abstract;(3) concluding that the menu and submenucommand tree structure is an

uncopyrightable process because of itserroneous finding of fact that the menu andthe submenu command tree structure of theACES program mimics the way a draftsmandraws such a layout by hand; (4) failing toconsider the copyrightability of the ACES program as a whole, including thecombination of elements that themselvesmay not be copyrightable; (5) applying thewrong standard in comparing the programsat issue in this case; and (6) finding that

ArcE's copying of the copyrightableelements of the ACES program was deminimis. We will address these issues inturn.

FN14.Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693, 706-11 (2dCir.1992). See also Bateman v.Mnemonics, 79 F.3d 1532, 1543-46(11th Cir.1996) (discussing andapplying theAltai test).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Claims of Copyright Infringement

[2] To establish copyright infringement,MiTek must prove (1) ownership of a valid

copyright, and (2) copying of constituentelements of the work that are original.Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv.

Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361, 111 S.Ct. 1282,1296, 113 L.Ed.2d 358 (1991); see alsoBateman v. Mnemonics, Inc., 79 F.3d 1532,1541 (11th Cir.1996). To satisfyFeist's firstprong, plaintiff must prove that the work asa *1554 whole is original and that theplaintiff complied with applicable statutoryformalities. Lotus Dev. Corp. v. BorlandInt'l, Inc., 49 F.3d 807, 813 (1st Cir.1995),aff'd by an equally divided Court, 516 U.S.233, 116 S.Ct. 804, 133 L.Ed.2d 610 (1996).

The Copyright Act provides that [i]n any judicial proceedings the certificate of aregistration made before or within five yearsafter first publication of the work shallconstitute prima facie evidence of thevalidity of the copyright and of the factsstated in the certificate. 17 U.S.C. 410(c)(1996). Once the plaintiff produces acertificate of copyright, the burden shifts tothe defendant to demonstrate why the claimof copyright is invalid. Bateman, 79 F.3d

at 1541.

In this case, Feist 's first prong is not atissue, because ArcE does not contest thevalidity of the copyright registrations for thethree versions of the ACES program. Whatis at issue is Feist 's second prong, namelywhether ArcE has copied constituentelements of the ACES programs that areoriginal. As the Tenth Circuit stated, Thisquestion involves two separate inquiries: 1)

whether the defendant, as a factual matter,copied portions of the plaintiff's program;and 2) whether, as a mixed issue of fact andlaw, those elements of the program that havebeen copied are protected expression and ofsuch importance to the copied work that theappropriation is actionable. Gates Rubber
http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1992218838&ReferencePosition=706http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1992218838&ReferencePosition=706http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1992218838&ReferencePosition=706http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1992218838&ReferencePosition=706http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1992218838&ReferencePosition=706http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1992218838&ReferencePosition=706http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1543http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1543http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1543http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1543http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1543http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1543http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1543http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1543http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1991060551&ReferencePosition=1296http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1991060551&ReferencePosition=1296http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1991060551&ReferencePosition=1296http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1991060551&ReferencePosition=1296http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1991060551&ReferencePosition=1296http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1991060551&ReferencePosition=1296http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1541http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1541http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1541http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1541http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1541http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1995061748&ReferencePosition=813http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1995061748&ReferencePosition=813http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1995061748&ReferencePosition=813http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1995061748&ReferencePosition=813http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1995061748&ReferencePosition=813http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1996029617http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1996029617http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1996029617http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1996029617http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1996029617http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS410&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS410&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1541http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1541http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1541http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1541http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1541http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1993204408&ReferencePosition=832http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1992218838&ReferencePosition=706http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1992218838&ReferencePosition=706http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1992218838&ReferencePosition=706http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1992218838&ReferencePosition=706http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1543http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1543http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1543http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1543http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1991060551&ReferencePosition=1296http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1991060551&ReferencePosition=1296http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1991060551&ReferencePosition=1296http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1991060551&ReferencePosition=1296http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1541http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1541http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1541http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1995061748&ReferencePosition=813http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1995061748&ReferencePosition=813http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1995061748&ReferencePosition=813http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1996029617http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1996029617http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1996029617http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS410&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS410&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1541http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1541http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1541http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1993204408&ReferencePosition=832


7/17

Co. v. Bando Chem. Indus., Ltd., 9 F.3d 823,832 (10th Cir.1993).

[3] [4] As a factual matter, a proof of copyingmay be shown either by direct evidence, or,in the absence of direct evidence, it may beinferred from indirect evidencedemonstrating that the defendant had accessto the copyrighted work and that there areprobative similarities between the allegedlyinfringing work and the copyrighted work.Id.; see alsoBateman, 79 F.3d at 1541. Evenif the court finds that the putative infringercopied portions of the copyright owner's

program, that is not the end of the inquiry.Copyright infringement occurs only if onecopies protected elements of a copyrightedwork; in other words, the portion of thecopyrighted work that is copied mustsatisfy the constitutional requirement oforiginality as set forth in Article I, 8, cl.8. Bateman, 79 F.3d at 1542; see alsoFeist, 499 U.S. at 345-46, 111 S.Ct. at 1287-88 (noting that [t]he sine qua non ofcopyright is originality, as well as

emphasizing that it is a constitutionalrequirement). As the Court in Feist noted,the mere fact that a work is copyrighteddoes not mean that every element of thework may be protected. Id. at 348, 111S.Ct. at 1289.

[5] Significantly, the Copyright Actexpressly states that:

In no case does copyright protection for

an original work of authorship extend toany idea, procedure, process, system,method of operation, concept, principle,

or discovery, regardless of the form inwhich it is described, explained,illustrated, or embodied in such work.

17 U.S.C. 102(b) (1996) (emphasisadded). Thus, in order for a plaintiff to prevail on a claim of copyright

infringement, the court must find not onlythat the portion of the work copied isoriginal and thus protectable but also thatthe copying of copyrighted material was soextensive that it rendered the offending andcopyrighted works substantially similar.Lotus, 49 F.3d at 813. In this case, the keyinquiry is determining whether the elementsof the program that allegedly were copiedare original and hence protectable.

B. The District Court Opinion

[6] On appeal, the district court'sconclusions of law are reviewed de novo.Worthington v. United States, 21 F.3d 399,400 (11th Cir.1994). A district court'sfindings of fact in a bench trial shall not beset aside unless clearly erroneous.Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). A finding is clearlyerroneous when the reviewing court, afterassessing the evidence, is left with [the]

definite and firm conviction that a mistakehas been committed. Worthington, 21F.3d at 400 (quotingUnited States v. UnitedStates Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68S.Ct. 525, 542, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948)).Applying these standards of review, weexamine seriatim the six issues presented.

*1555 1. Failure to Perform an AbstractionUnder the Altai Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison Test

[7] MiTek asserts that, although the districtcourt purported to apply the abstraction-filtration-comparison test of ComputerAssocs. Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693(2d Cir.1992), it failed not only tounderstand the test but also to apply it

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1993204408&ReferencePosition=832http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1993204408&ReferencePosition=832http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1993204408&ReferencePosition=832http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1993204408&ReferencePosition=832http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1993204408&ReferencePosition=832http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1541http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1541http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1541http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1541http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1541http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOARTIS8CL8&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOARTIS8CL8&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1542http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1542http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1542http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1542http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1991060551&ReferencePosition=1287http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1991060551&ReferencePosition=1287http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1991060551&ReferencePosition=1287http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1991060551&ReferencePosition=1287http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1991060551&ReferencePosition=1287http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1991060551&ReferencePosition=1289http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1991060551&ReferencePosition=1289http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1991060551&ReferencePosition=1289http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1991060551&ReferencePosition=1289http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1991060551&ReferencePosition=1289http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS102&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1995061748&ReferencePosition=813http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1995061748&ReferencePosition=813http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1995061748&ReferencePosition=813http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1995061748&ReferencePosition=813http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1995061748&ReferencePosition=813http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994103427&ReferencePosition=400http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994103427&ReferencePosition=400http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994103427&ReferencePosition=400http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994103427&ReferencePosition=400http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994103427&ReferencePosition=400http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1004365&DocName=USFRCPR52&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994103427&ReferencePosition=400http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994103427&ReferencePosition=400http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994103427&ReferencePosition=400http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994103427&ReferencePosition=400http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994103427&ReferencePosition=400http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1948119024&ReferencePosition=542http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1948119024&ReferencePosition=542http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1948119024&ReferencePosition=542http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1948119024&ReferencePosition=542http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1948119024&ReferencePosition=542http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1948119024&ReferencePosition=542http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1948119024&ReferencePosition=542http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1992218838http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1992218838http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1992218838http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1992218838http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1992218838http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1992218838http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1993204408&ReferencePosition=832http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1993204408&ReferencePosition=832http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1993204408&ReferencePosition=832http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1541http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1541http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOARTIS8CL8&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOARTIS8CL8&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1542http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1542http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1991060551&ReferencePosition=1287http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1991060551&ReferencePosition=1287http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1991060551&ReferencePosition=1287http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1991060551&ReferencePosition=1289http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1991060551&ReferencePosition=1289http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1991060551&ReferencePosition=1289http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS102&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1995061748&ReferencePosition=813http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1995061748&ReferencePosition=813http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994103427&ReferencePosition=400http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994103427&ReferencePosition=400http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994103427&ReferencePosition=400http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1004365&DocName=USFRCPR52&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994103427&ReferencePosition=400http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994103427&ReferencePosition=400http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994103427&ReferencePosition=400http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1948119024&ReferencePosition=542http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1948119024&ReferencePosition=542http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1948119024&ReferencePosition=542http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1948119024&ReferencePosition=542http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1992218838http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1992218838http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1992218838http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1992218838


8/17

properly. More specifically, MiTek arguesthat the district court erred in finding that noabstraction or similar type of analysis was

necessary. This finding was based on thedistrict court's determination that sinceMiTek had identified 18 non-literalelements of its layout programs that itcontends are entitled to copyright protectionand which Defendant infringed upon, thecourt would limit its inquiry as to thecopyrightability of these 18 elementsdesignated by the Plaintiff. MiTek, 864F.Supp. at 1579. The district court concludedthat it did not need to undertake any

abstraction, since MiTek had done this for it.Accordingly, the district court proceededdirectly to step two of the Altai test,filtration.

MiTek is correct in asserting that the districtcourt did not abstract further the list ofeighteen elements that MiTek presented asbeing expressive and original elements ofthe three versions of the ACES program.However, the district court did not err in

failing to abstract further the features thatMiTek presented to it in its ProposedFindings of Fact and Conclusions of Law asbeing original at the time they were firstincorporated into those versions of theACES Layout Program. R2-104-10.During the bench trial, one of MiTek'sexperts was questioned about an exhibit thathe had prepared, which he stated containedthe expressive features in the Aces layout programs Versions 1, 2 and 3 that he

deemed to be original. R5-367-68; seealso Plaintiff's Exh. 18L, pp. 4-5. This samelist was presented to the court by MiTek inits Proposed Findings of Fact andConclusions of Law. R2-104-10-12. In otherwords, the district court took at face valueMiTek's representations as to what elements

of the ACES program MiTek considered to be protectable expression. In acceptingMiTek's representations, the district court

committed no error.

[8] [9] [10] What MiTek apparently fails toappreciate is that the ultimate burden is onthe copyright holder to prove infringement.Therefore, if the copyright holder presentsthe court with a list of features that itbelieves to be protectable (i.e., original andoutside of 17 U.S.C. 102(b)), the courtneed not abstract further such features.Perhaps the best approach for a district court

in any computer program infringement case,whether involving literal or nonliteralelements,FN15 is for it to require the copyrightowner to inform the court as to what aspectsor elements of its computer program itconsiders to be protectable. This will serveas the starting point for the court's copyrightinfringement analysis. While it is not clearthat the district court specifically requestedthis list, or if MiTek offered it to the court,the desired result nonetheless was achieved

because MiTek provided the court with sucha delineation. After submitting aspecification of the elements that it deemedto be protectable, MiTek cannot now arguethat the district court failed to abstractfurther the elements of its own designationof protectable features. The purpose of theabstraction portion of the Altai test is toenable courts to separate protectableexpression from unprotected ideas,FN16 and,in this case, *1556 MiTek presented this

analysis to the court. Therefore, there is nomerit to MiTek's claim that the district courterred in failing to perform an abstractionunder theAltai test or in failing to undertakea similar type of analysis.

FN15. The literal elements of a
http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1579http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1579http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1579http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1579http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1579http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS102&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1579http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1579http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1579http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS102&FindType=L


9/17

computer program are its source andobject code. Source code is asymbolic language that humans can

read, whereas object code is atranslation of the source code into aseries of zeros and ones that isreadable by a computer. For a moredetailed description of source andobject code and the issues related tocomputer code, seeBateman, 79 F.3dat 1539 n. 17 & n. 18. In this case,we are concerned not with literalelements of a computer program, because MiTek concedes that the

source and object codes of the two programs are not substantiallysimilar. What is at issue are thenonliteral elements of a program,which are the products that aregenerated by the code's interactionwith the computer hardware andoperating program(s). Examples ofnonliteral elements of a computerprogram include its screen displaysand the main menu and submenu

command tree structure containedthereon.

FN16. The Altai test was formulatedto determine whether the nonliteralelements of two or more computer programs are substantially similar.Altai, 982 F.2d at 706. TheAltai casewas concerned with the nonliteralcopying of the structure of acomputer program. In other words,

there was no verbatim copying of thesource or object code (which would be literal copying of a literalelement), but rather, there wereallegations of substantial similarity(i.e., nonliteral copying) of nonliteralelements, namely parameter lists,

macros, and general flow charts. Id.at 702. It is important to differentiatebetween both literal and nonliteral

copying, as well as between literaland nonliteral elements of acomputer program. The latter use ofthe terms literal and nonliteral isas terms of art, whereas the former isnot. However, courts unfortunatelyoften fail to distinguish between thetwo, or simply mischaracterize whatis at issue in a certain case. Forinstance, the Lotus court stated that[w]hile theAltai test may provide a

useful framework for assessing thealleged nonliteral copying ofcomputer code, we find it to be oflittle help in assessing whether theliteral copying of a menu commandhierarchy constitutes copyrightinfringement. 49 F.3d at 815. Theproblem with this statement is thatthe Altai test was designed to helpassess nonliteral copying of anonliteral element, not nonliteral

copying of computer code (a literalelement). While this slightmisstatement had no effect on theultimate outcome ofLotus (since itwas a literal copying case, not anonliteral copying case), it is anexample of how imprecise languagein computer copyright cases cancreate confusion and conceivablylead to a misreading of what thecourt is trying to say. Therefore, in

this case, we will attempt to be precise-we are dealing with thealleged nonliteral copying ofnonliteral elements (i.e., userinterfaces) of a computer program.

2. The Uncopyrightable Process of the

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1539http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1539http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1539http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1539http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1539http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1539http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1992218838&ReferencePosition=706http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1992218838&ReferencePosition=706http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1992218838&ReferencePosition=706http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1992218838&ReferencePosition=706http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1995061748&ReferencePosition=815http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1539http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1539http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1996076150&ReferencePosition=1539http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1992218838&ReferencePosition=706http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1992218838&ReferencePosition=706http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1995061748&ReferencePosition=815


10/17

ACES Menu and Submenu Command Tree

Structure

[11] MiTek also contends that the districtcourt, in failing to abstract the ACESprogram's menuFN17 and submenu commandtree structure, FN18 erred in concluding that itis a process and thus foreclosed fromcopyright protection by 17 U.S.C. 102(b).Although the copyrightability of nonliteralelements of a computer program is an issueof first impression for our circuit, basic principles of copyright law guide us inaddressing it.

FN17. The district court noted that[a] menu, in computer parlance, isa graphical user interface employedto store information or functions ofthe computers in a place that isconvenient to reach, but saves screenspace for other images. 864 F.Supp.at 1580 n. 11. In both the ACES andTrussPro programs, there are twoseparate menus of command choices,

one running across the top of thescreen and another running along theright-hand side of the screen. Asubmenu is an additional set ofoptions that relates to a prior menuselection.

FN18. A command tree or command tree structure informsthe user, in a hierarchical fashion, ofthe options available and also

interacts with the user in requestinginformation from the user in order toutilize the program.

[12] The district court found that themethod the Aces Layout Programs follow,including the menu and the sub-menu

command tree structure, is a process that isnot entitled to copyright protection. 864F.Supp. at 1580. The district court's

conclusion was based principally on itsfinding that the means by which the AcesLayout Programs undertake their task ofdrafting roof truss planes mimic the steps adraftsman would follow in designing a rooftruss plan by hand. Id. MiTek argues thatthe district court's failure to abstract theACES menu and submenu command treestructure beyond the level at which MiTekpresented it to the district court led the courtto conclude that it is unprotectable as a

process. MiTek contends that an abstractionshould have been performed by the courtand that such an abstraction would havediscovered substantial protectableexpression.FN19

FN19. MiTek seems tomisapprehend the fundamental principle of copyright law thatcopyright does not protect an idea,but only the expression of the idea.

The idea-expression dichotomy isclearly set forth in 17 U.S.C. 102(b), which by its express terms prohibits copyright protection forany idea, procedure, process,system, method of operation,concept, principle, or discovery,regardless of the form in which it isdescribed, explained, illustrated, orembodied in such work. 17 U.S.C. 102(b). Were we to grant copyright

protection to MiTek's user interface,which is nothing more than a process, we would be affordingcopyright protection to a process thatis the province of patent law. As theFederal Circuit stated, Patent andcopyright laws protect distinct
http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS102&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1580http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1580http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1580http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1580http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS102&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS102&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS102&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS102&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS102&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1580http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1580http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1580http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1580http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS102&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS102&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS102&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS102&FindType=L


11/17

aspects of a computer program. Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America, Inc., 975 F.2d 832, 839

(Fed.Cir.1992). Patent law providesprotection for the process or method performed by a computer inaccordance with a program,whereas copyright protects only theexpression of that process ormethod. Id. If, however, thepatentable process and its expressionare indistinguishable or inextricablyintertwined, then the processmerges with the expression and

precludes copyright protection.Id. at 839-40. Such is the case withthe menu and the submenu commandtree structure of the ACES program.

*1557[13] The First Circuit recentlyaddressed the issue of [w]hether acomputer menu command hierarchyconstitutes copyrightable subject matter.Lotus, 49 F.3d at 813. The Lotus court heldthat the Lotus menu command hierarchy is

an uncopyrightable method of operation that provided the means by which userscontrol and operate Lotus 1-2-3. Id. at 815.In reaching its conclusion, the First Circuitanalogized the buttons that operate acomputer program to those that operate aVCR, the latter being an obvious example ofa method of operation. Id. at 817. Unlikethe Lotus court, we need not decide todaywhether a main menu and submenucommand tree structure is uncopyrightable

as a matter of law. We agree with theconclusion reached by the district court thatthe ACES menu and submenu command treestructure is uncopyrightable under17 U.S.C. 102(b). MiTek's argument that the districtcourt erred in denying protection under 17U.S.C. 102(b) is without merit.FN20

FN20. Even were we to concludethat section 102(b)does not prohibit

the ACES main menu and submenucommand tree structure from beingentitled to copyright protection,MiTek would not prevail on thisissue. This feature of the ACES programs is unoriginal and notentitled to copyright protection. Thelook of the ACES program is basically industry standard forcomputer aided-design (CAD) programs, with the menu bars

running across the top and the right,and the large work area occupyingmost of the screen. In addition, basedon the district court's conclusion thatthe ACES programs mimic the stepsa draftsman would follow indesigning a roof truss plan by hand,a conclusion with which we find nofault, the structure of the menu andsubmenu command tree of the ACESprograms tracking that approach is

unoriginal and uncopyrightable. Thelogical design sequence is akin to amathematical formula that may beexpressed in only a limited numberof ways; to grant copyright protection to the first person todevise the formula effectively wouldremove that mathematical fact fromthe public domain. The mergerdoctrine prohibits such anappropriation. See Gates, 9 F.3d at

838.

[14] [15] A related argument advanced byMiTek is that the district court erred incharacterizing the use of trapezoids in theACES program as a means of visuallydepicting planes. MiTek contends that the

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1992158352&ReferencePosition=839http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1992158352&ReferencePosition=839http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1992158352&ReferencePosition=839http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1992158352&ReferencePosition=839http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1992158352&ReferencePosition=839http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1992158352&ReferencePosition=839http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1995061748&ReferencePosition=813http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1995061748&ReferencePosition=813http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1995061748&ReferencePosition=813http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1995061748&ReferencePosition=813http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS102&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS102&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS102&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS102&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS102&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS102&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS102&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1993204408&ReferencePosition=838http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1993204408&ReferencePosition=838http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1993204408&ReferencePosition=838http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1993204408&ReferencePosition=838http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1993204408&ReferencePosition=838http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1993204408&ReferencePosition=838http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1992158352&ReferencePosition=839http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1992158352&ReferencePosition=839http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1992158352&ReferencePosition=839http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1992158352&ReferencePosition=839http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1995061748&ReferencePosition=813http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1995061748&ReferencePosition=813http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS102&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS102&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS102&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS102&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS102&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1993204408&ReferencePosition=838http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1993204408&ReferencePosition=838http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1993204408&ReferencePosition=838


12/17

trapezoids are used not to depict planes, butrather to indicate to the program user that apitched or sloping plane for a particular wall

has been defined. MiTek states that [a]spart of defining the shape of the roof usingthe concept of intersecting planes, after allthe walls are entered, and after informationabout each plane is entered for a particularwall, a trapezoid shape surrounds the wallon the screen. Brief of Appellants at 38.MiTek contends that the use of a trapezoidin this manner is a purely arbitrary,expressive feature. Id. We are not certainthat the district court misconstrued the

purpose behind the use of trapezoids,FN21

but,even if it did, this use of trapezoids lackssufficient originality to be entitled tocopyright protection.FN22

FN21. The testimony of one ofMiTek's experts seems to contradictthe argument that it makes in its brief. Thomas Zgraggen, who prepared the list of 18 nonliteralelements that MiTek claims are

protected by copyright, testified, ondirect examination, in response to aquestion about the use of trapezoidsin the program, that [t]his is theactual depiction of a defined plane.R5-372. He also testified that theprogram chose to actually follow amore graphic method by showing atrapezoid which actuallyencompasses the wall where thatplane has been defined. Id. Given

this expert testimony by one ofMiTek's own witnesses, it isunderstandable that the courtconcluded that the trapezoids in theACES programs were used to depictplanes. If that is the case, then thedistrict court properly applied the

merger doctrine to deny protection tothe use of trapezoids.

FN22. Even were we to concludethat this use of trapezoids is entitledto protection, ArcE's use oftrapezoids in its program wouldconstitute nothing more thannonactionable de minimis copying.

3. Similarity of the ACES Program StructureWith the Way a Draftsman Draws a TrussLayout by Hand

Closely related to the menu and submenucommand tree issue is MiTek's contentionthat the district court erred in concludingthat the ACES program mimicked the stepsthat a draftsman would take in drawing and*1558 designing a roof truss plan by hand.See MiTek, 864 F.Supp. at 1580. MiTekcontends that its programs do not mimic thesteps taken by a draftsman, because, interalia, a mouse is used, the walls are drawn indifferent colors, and a pop-up keypad is used

on the screen to enter numeric information.Appellants Brief at 33-38. We find that thedistrict court was not suggesting that theACES program was an exact correlation tothe steps that a draftsman would take, giventhe different media that are being used (i.e.,a computer as compared to a pen and paper).Constraints associated with computer programs and computer design dictate asomewhat different design process. As ageneral matter, however, the idea of closely

correlating the ACES program to thelonghand steps taken by a draftsman was theconstraining force in the design of the menuand submenu command tree structure. Thelogic inherent in this step-by-step processrenders the resulting program unoriginal inthat such logic may be expressed in only a
http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1580http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1580http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1580http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1580http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1580http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1994191950&ReferencePosition=1580


13/17

limited number of ways. More than a minordeparture from the logical sequence rendersthe result unusable. Thus, the district court

did not err in concluding that this structure isnot entitled to copyright protection.

4. Consideration of the Copyrightability ofthe ACES Program as a Compilation

[16] MiTek argues that the district courtgave short shrift to its contention that theselection, coordination, and arrangementembodied in the ACES program and its userinterfaces are entitled to compilation

copyright protection.FN23

It points out thatthe Supreme Court, in Feist, 499 U.S. at359-60, 111 S.Ct. at 1295, noted that a workcomprised only of facts is copyrightable tothe extent that such facts are selected,arranged, or organized (and thus presented)in an original way. This protection is limited,however, and extends only to the work as awhole, and only if the selection,coordination, or arrangement is sufficientlyoriginal to be copyrightable.

FN23. The Copyright Act defines theterm compilation as a work formedby the collection and assembling ofpreexisting materials or of data thatare selected, coordinated, orarranged in such a way that theresulting work as a whole constitutesan original work of authorship. 17U.S.C. 101 (emphasis added).

[17] We acknowledge that a user interface,here a screen display (itself an audiovisualwork), may be entitled to copyright protection as a compilation. In order toreceive this protection, however, thecompilation must be original and expressive.MiTek cites to Digital Communications

Assocs., Inc. v. Softklone Distrib. Corp., 659F.Supp. 449, 463 (N.D.Ga.1987), as a casein which a court concluded that the status

screen, which is a compilation, iscopyrightable to the extent of itsarrangement and design of parameter/command terms. Underlyingthis holding, however, was the Softklonecourt's finding that the copyright holder'scompilation met the requirements of 17U.S.C. 102, namely, that it was (1) anoriginal work of authorship (2) fixed in atangible medium from which it (3) can beperceived and (4) not an idea or necessary

expression of an idea. Id. Even thisdetermination was not the end of theanalysis in Softklone, for, once the courtdetermined that the status screens were protectable, it still compared the putativeinfringer's status screens to those of thecopyright holder. Only after the courtconcluded that they were virtuallyidentical did it hold that the compilationcopyright in the status screens wasinfringed.Id. at 465.

[18] This circuit has not established thestandard that should be used in analyzingclaims of compilation copyrightinfringement of nonliteral elements of acomputer program. Today, we join the NinthCircuit in adopting the bodily appropriationof expression or virtual identicalitystandard.FN24 See Apple Computer, Inc. v.Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435, 1446 (9thCir.1994) (noting that, in the case of alleged

infringement of a work as a whole (i.e., acompilation), there can be no *1559infringement unless the works are virtuallyidentical), cert. denied,513 U.S. 1184, 115S.Ct. 1176, 130 L.Ed.2d 1129 (1995);Harper House, Inc. v. Thomas Nelson, Inc.,

889 F.2d 197, 205 (9th Cir.1989) (stating

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1991060551&ReferencePosition=1295http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1991060551&ReferencePosition=1295http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1991060551&ReferencePosition=1295http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1991060551&ReferencePosition=1295http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1991060551&ReferencePosition=1295http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS101&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=17USCAS101&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1987041850&ReferencePosition=463http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1987041850&ReferencePosition=463http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1987041850&ReferencePosition=463http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1987041850&ReferencePosition=463http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345

MiTek Holdings, Inc v Arce Eng'g Co (11th Cir copyright)

Documents

Transcript of MiTek Holdings, Inc v Arce Eng'g Co (11th Cir copyright)