Nova Productions Ltd v Mazooma Games Ltd & Ors Rev 1

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns two copyright infringement actions relating to coin-operated video games themed on pool. The claimant ("Nova") is a United Kingdom company engaged in designing, manufacturing, and selling arcade video games, including one called Pocket Money.

In the first action (the '882 action), Nova alleges infringement by a coin-operated game called Jackpot Pool. This game was created by the first defendant ("Mazooma") who supplied software to the second defendant ("Games Network"). Games Network copied the software and supplied it to the third defendant ("Gamestec"), who operates the Gamesnet terminal that features Jackpot Pool. Mazooma also supplied the software to the fourth defendant ("Inspired"), who copied it and supplied it to the fifth defendant ("Leisure Link"), which operates the IT Box terminal hosting Jackpot Pool. Proceedings against the second to fifth defendants in the '882 action are stayed pending the outcome against Mazooma.

In the second action (the '084 action), Nova complains of the game Trick Shot, manufactured and operated in the UK by the defendant ("Bell-Fruit").

The video games market is divided between home-play and coin-operated sectors. This case concerns the latter. Coin-operated games include amusement with prizes (AWP), skill with prizes (SWP), and video arcade style games. Trick Shot is an AWP game; Pocket Money and Jackpot Pool are SWP games.

Nova was founded in 1990 by two directors, Mr Robinson and Mr Jones, who designed Pocket Money as a skill-based pool game rewarding hand-eye coordination. The game was completed in 2001 and proved commercially successful.

Nova had complex dealings with the defendants' groups: Danoptra (Mazooma, Games Network, Gamestec, Bell-Fruit) and Leisure Link (Inspired, Leisure Link). Various meetings, trade shows, and negotiations occurred between 2002 and 2004, with the defendants developing and launching their respective games.

Expert evidence was given by witnesses for both sides, including specialists in game design and intellectual property.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Did the defendants copy Pocket Money when creating Jackpot Pool and Trick Shot?
2. If so, did such copying involve reproduction of a substantial part of any copyright work owned by Nova?

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by defining the copyright works at issue: artistic works (bitmap graphics and composite frames), literary works (design notes and computer program), dramatic work (disputed), and film copyright (conceded not infringed at first instance).

Artistic works were found to include the bitmap images and composite frames generated by the program, with Mr Jones as the author by virtue of his programming and design work. The court rejected the notion that player input creates authorship of the artistic works.

The court rejected the contention that Pocket Money is a dramatic work, relying on precedent that dramatic works must have sufficient unity and be capable of performance. The variable and interactive nature of the game precluded this classification.

Regarding infringement, the court applied established principles from Designers Guild: copying must involve a substantial part of the claimant's copyright work, focusing on the cumulative effect of similarities rather than isolated features.

The court acknowledged that many features relied upon by Nova were common or obvious in pool-themed video games and had been implemented differently in the defendants' games. It found that the similarities largely reflected general ideas or commonplace features, not protectable expression.

In relation to the literary works, the court held that no copying of source code or preparatory design materials occurred. The defendants' games did not reproduce a substantial part of the computer program's expression but rather shared generalized ideas, which are not protected under the Software Directive.

The court carefully examined each alleged similarity between Pocket Money and the defendants' games, finding that while some features were inspired by Pocket Money, such features were either commonplace, implemented differently, or did not amount to a substantial part of any copyright work.

The court also considered the credibility of witnesses and found the defendants' designers had independently developed their games, albeit with some inspiration from Pocket Money, without slavish copying.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

The court held that both copyright infringement actions brought by Nova against the defendants failed. The alleged similarities did not amount to reproduction of a substantial part of any of Nova's copyright works. The decision directly affects the parties by denying Nova's claims but does not establish new legal precedent beyond the application of existing principles to the facts of this case.