proposition that “copyrighted language may be copied without infringing when there is but a limited number of ways to express a given idea. … In the computer context, this means that when specific instructions, even though previously copyrighted, are the only and essential means of accomplishing a given task, their later use by another will not amount to infringement.” Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693, 708 (2d Cir. 1992) (emphasis added). This recognition is not limited to computer programs. The CONTU report cited by the Second Circuit derived the quoted language from a Second Circuit case acknowledging “the use of specific language in forms and documents may be so essential to accomplish a desired result and so integrated with the use of a legal or commercial conception that the proper standard of infringement is one which will protect as far as possible the copyrighted language and yet allow free use of the thought beneath the language.” Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Beardsley, 253 F.2d 702, 706 (2d Cir. 1958).
Accordingly, the Court concludes that, when assessing Defendants’ alleged infringement, it should consider whether previously copyrighted language has become essential to the expression of, or integrated with, a legal
66
