№ files_lp_4_process_3_067424
File format: docx Character count: 16908 File size: 35 KB
Analysis of a legal case discussing whether the commercial distribution of user-created levels for Duke Nukem 3D constitutes a derivative work under U.S. copyright law and whether such use infringes FormGen’s copyrights.
Year: 1998
Jurisdiction: United States, Ninth Circuit
Topic: Copyright Infringement, Video Games
Document Type: Court Opinion
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Judge: Kozinski, Circuit Judge
Parties: Micro Star; FormGen Inc., GT Interactive Software Corp., Apogee Software, Ltd.
Legal Issue: Copyright infringement of user-created video game levels and derivative works
Procedural Posture: Appeal from district court decision on preliminary injunction and copyright claims
Relevant Law: 17 U.S.C. § 106(2); Copyright Act definitions of derivative works
Case Outcome: District court granted preliminary injunction on use of screenshots; copyright infringement claims considered on appeal
Price: 8 / 10 USD
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.

Don’t have cryptocurrency yet?

You can still complete your purchase in a few minutes:
  1. Buy Crypto in a trusted app (Coinbase, Kraken, Cash App or any similar service).
  2. In the app, tap Send.
  3. Select network, paste our wallet address.
  4. Send the exact amount shown above.
After sending, paste your TXID (transaction ID) and your email to receive the download link. Need help? Contact support and we’ll guide you step by step.

The final amount may vary slightly depending on the payment method.
The file will be sent to the email address provided at checkout within 24 hours.
The product description is provided for reference. Actual content and formatting may differ slightly.
MICRO STAR v. FORMGEN INC.
Year: 1998
Region / City: United States
Topic: Copyright Law, Software Distribution, Intellectual Property
Document Type: Court Ruling
Agency / Organization: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Author: Circuit Judge Kozinski
Target Audience: Legal professionals, Software developers, Copyright holders
Period of Effect: Ongoing
Approval Date: 1998
Date of Changes: N/A
MICRO STAR v. FORMGEN INC.
Year: 1998
Region / city: United States, Ninth Circuit
Subject: Copyright infringement
Document type: Court ruling
Institution: United States Court of Appeals
Author: Judge Kozinski
Target audience: Legal professionals, game developers
Effective period: Not applicable
Approval date: Sept. 11, 1998
Amendment date: Not applicable
BIOS 1107 Lab: Biological Principles Fall 2022 Lab Syllabus & Schedule
Year: 2022
Region / City: USA
Subject: Biological Sciences
Document Type: Lab Syllabus
Institution: Georgia Institute of Technology
Instructor: Dr. Colin Harrison
Target Audience: Undergraduate Students
Period of Validity: Fall 2022
Date of Approval: September 2022
Date of Updates: September 2022
General Order 1107 - February 2026
Year: 2026
Region / City: Lynnfield, MA
Topic: Monthly Association meeting
Document Type: General Order
Organization / Institution: Box 52 Association Inc.
Author: Michael Kass, Timothy Marks
Target Audience: Members of the Box 52 Association
Effective Period: February 2026
Approval Date: February 20, 2026
Modification Date: Not specified
South Plains College Department of Kinesiology SYLLABUS- KINE 1107 Walk, Jog, Run- Online – Fall 2024
Year: 2024
Region / City: South Plains College
Topic: Physical Education, Fitness Training
Document Type: Syllabus
Institution: South Plains College
Instructor: Ryan Heth
Target Audience: Students enrolled in KINE 1107
Period of Action: Fall 2024
Approval Date: Not specified
Date of Modifications: Not specified
Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.786 F.3d 983 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
Year: 2015
Region / City: Northern District of California, USA
Topic: Intellectual Property, Trademark Law, Patent Law
Document Type: Court Ruling
Organization / Institution: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Author: Chief Judge Prost
Target Audience: Legal professionals, intellectual property practitioners
Effective Period: 2015
Date of Approval: March 6, 2014
Date of Changes: N/A
PATCO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. PEOPLE'S UNITED BANK, 684 F.3d 197 (2012)
Year: 2012
Jurisdiction: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Country: United States
State involved: Maine; Connecticut
Legal field: Banking Law; Commercial Law; Electronic Funds Transfer
Document type: Judicial opinion
Court level: Federal appellate court
Lower court: United States District Court for the District of Maine
Legal framework: Uniform Commercial Code Article 4A
Subject: Liability for fraudulent electronic funds transfers and commercial reasonableness of bank security procedures
Financial amount in dispute: $588,851.26 total fraudulent withdrawals; $345,444.43 unrecovered loss
Banking system referenced: Automated Clearing House (ACH) network
Relevant agreements: eBanking for Business Agreement; Automated Clearing House Agreement
Decision outcome: Reversal of summary judgment for the bank and remand for further proceedings
LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER S.A v. HAUTE DIGGITY DOG, LLC507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2007)
Year: 2007
Region / City: USA
Topic: Trademark Infringement, Copyright Infringement, Parody
Document Type: Court Opinion
Institution / Organization: U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit
Author: Circuit Judge Niemeyer
Target Audience: Legal professionals, scholars, and practitioners
Validity Period: N/A
Approval Date: N/A
Amendment Date: N/A
Context: A legal opinion discussing trademark infringement and parody in a case involving Louis Vuitton and Haute Diggity Dog LLC regarding "Chewy Vuiton" dog toys.
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 786 F.3d 983 (CAFC 2015)
Year: 2015
Country: United States
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case citation: 786 F.3d 983
Case name: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
Parties: Apple Inc.; Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC
Legal field: Intellectual Property Law
Subject matter: Design patents, utility patents, and trade dress dilution related to smartphone design
Type of document: Appellate court opinion
Authoring judge: Sharon Prost (Chief Judge)
Lower court: United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Original lawsuit filed: April 2011
Jury verdict date: August 24, 2012
Final judgment of district court: March 6, 2014
Applicable legislation: Lanham Act; U.S. patent law; federal trademark law
Procedural posture: Appeal from final judgment and damages awards following jury trials and post-trial motions
Key legal issues: Patent infringement, trade dress protection, trade dress functionality, damages for intellectual property infringement
Referenced trademark: Trademark Registration No. 3,470,983
Topics: FORMGEN 1107 F3d