Engineering Dynamics, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Structural Software, Inc., and S. Rao Guntur, Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that nonliteral elements “such as the program architecture, ‘structure, sequence and organization,’ operational modules, and computer-user interface” may be protectable
• referring to Comput. Assocs. Int’l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992) and Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chem. Indus., 9 F.3d 823 (10th Cir. 1993)
• collecting cases noting that works with thin copyright nevertheless are infringed when copied verbatim
• reversing the district court’s holding that computer/user interfaces in the forms of input and output formats are per se not copyrightable and remanding to determine if industry standards, as applied here, precluded sufficient originality
• applying Feist’s definition of originality to user input and output formats
• “There is no intuitive reason why the anal- ysis should be any different for output formats.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).