The international video game industry has become one of the most important areas of modern copyright enforcement. Video games combine software, artwork, characters, music, cinematics, dialogue, audiovisual content and other creative elements. As games are distributed globally, copyright disputes can quickly become international litigation.
A significant recent example arose in the United States in 2025. Company A, a major U.S. entertainment and video game company, filed a copyright and trademark lawsuit against Company B, a major Chinese technology company and several of its affiliated entities. The dispute concerned a forthcoming video game that Company A alleged copied protected elements from one of its established game franchises.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:25-cv-06275. The court docket identifies copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 101 as one of the causes of action. (Justia Dockets & Filings)
The case provides an important example of how U.S. copyright law can affect Chinese companies developing and commercializing digital products for international markets.
Company A owned a successful video game franchise involving a post-apocalyptic world, a distinctive female protagonist, advanced technology and mechanical creatures.
Company B was developing a new open-world survival game intended for international distribution.
Company A alleged that the new game, promotional materials and related creative elements were substantially too similar to Company A's existing franchise.
The dispute was not based simply on the argument that both games belonged to the same general genre.
Instead, Company A alleged that Company B had reproduced or closely imitated specific protected audiovisual and artistic elements, including aspects of character presentation, visual design, environments, mechanical creatures and promotional materials.
Company A also asserted trademark claims, arguing that certain branding and character-related elements could create consumer confusion.
The complaint was filed on July 25, 2025. The publicly available court record confirms that Company B included a Chinese company among the defendants, together with affiliated companies incorporated in other jurisdictions. (Justia Dockets & Filings)
A common misunderstanding about copyright law is that a company can automatically claim infringement whenever another product looks similar.
That is not the correct legal test.
U.S. copyright law protects original expression, rather than general ideas, concepts, themes or genres.
For example, the general idea of an open-world survival game is not, by itself, something one company can normally monopolize through copyright.
Likewise, concepts such as a post-apocalyptic setting, exploration, crafting or fighting machines may exist independently from a particular copyrighted work.
The more difficult question is whether a defendant has copied protectable expression from the plaintiff's work.
Under Section 106 of the U.S. Copyright Act, a copyright owner has exclusive rights including reproduction, preparation of derivative works and distribution, subject to statutory limitations such as fair use. (美国版权局)
Therefore, in a case involving video games, lawyers may need to separate:
ideas from expression,
unprotected game mechanics from protected audiovisual content,
and general genre conventions from distinctive creative elements.
This distinction is extremely important for Chinese companies developing products for the U.S. market.
Copyright litigation often involves two fundamental questions.
First, did the defendant have an opportunity to access the plaintiff's copyrighted work?
Second, is the allegedly copied material sufficiently similar to protected expression?
In the case involving Company A and Company B, the complaint alleged circumstances suggesting that Company B was familiar with Company A's franchise before developing and promoting its own game.
Company A alleged that Company B had previously approached it concerning a potential collaboration involving the franchise. According to the complaint, that proposal did not result in a licensing agreement.
The plaintiff then argued that Company B proceeded with development of its own game despite its earlier knowledge of the existing franchise.
These allegations became relevant because evidence of access can be highly significant in a copyright dispute.
However, access alone does not establish infringement. A plaintiff still needs to establish unlawful copying of protectable material.
One of the most useful lessons from this case is that a video game is not a single undifferentiated copyright object.
Different components may receive different forms or levels of protection.
Potentially protectable elements can include:
● original artwork; ● character artwork; ● cinematic sequences; ● music; ● dialogue;
● written story elements; ● animation; ● original visual environments; ● software code;
● promotional artwork; ● and other original audiovisual expression.
Other elements may receive weaker or different protection.
For example, game mechanics and abstract rules generally cannot simply be monopolized because they appear in an earlier game.
This distinction is crucial for developers.
A company may legally create a survival game involving exploration, crafting and combat. The legal risk becomes substantially greater if the developer copies distinctive expressive elements from an existing copyrighted work.
Character design can create particularly difficult copyright questions.
A general character concept may not receive the same protection as a highly developed and distinctive character.
In the dispute, Company A alleged that Company B's game used a protagonist and visual presentation that were closely associated with Company A's established franchise.
This raises an important issue for game developers:
A character is not protected merely because it belongs to the same broad archetype, but highly distinctive visual and expressive features may receive copyright protection.
Therefore, companies developing characters should maintain records demonstrating independent creation.
Useful records may include:
● early sketches; ● concept art; ● design documents; ● development timestamps;
● internal correspondence; ● animation files; ● character specifications; ● and version histories.
These materials can become important evidence if another company later alleges copying.
The case also illustrates why companies should not focus exclusively on the game itself.
Marketing materials can create additional intellectual-property exposure.
A game may be independently developed but its advertisements, trailers, website graphics or social-media content could nevertheless create legal problems if they reproduce protected artwork or create confusion with another company's brand.
Therefore, a comprehensive pre-launch IP review should examine:
the game + trailer + website + screenshots + character images + advertisements + social-media accounts + product descriptions.
For companies launching products in the United States, this type of review can reduce risk before a dispute becomes public.
The case was filed in the Northern District of California, one of the most important U.S. jurisdictions for technology and entertainment disputes.
The complaint invoked federal copyright law.
This matters because copyright claims under the U.S. Copyright Act generally fall within federal jurisdiction.
For Chinese businesses, the practical lesson is significant.
A company incorporated in China can become involved in a U.S. federal copyright lawsuit if its activities and the circumstances of the dispute create an appropriate connection with the United States.
A foreign company should therefore not assume that operating primarily from China protects it from U.S. intellectual-property litigation.
Company A sought urgent judicial relief relating to the release and promotion of the disputed game.
This highlights the importance of preliminary injunctions in intellectual-property litigation.
A copyright owner may consider seeking an injunction when continuing distribution or release of a product could cause substantial harm before the case reaches final judgment.
For a video game, timing is particularly important.
A game may spend years in development but generate most of its commercial value during a short launch period.
If a court prevents a release shortly before launch, the commercial consequences can be substantial even before damages are determined.
Therefore, intellectual-property litigation can become a business continuity issue rather than simply a legal dispute.
Company B disputed the allegations and defended its position.
This is important because the filing of a complaint does not mean that the plaintiff has already proved infringement.
A complaint contains allegations.
A court must ultimately determine the legal and factual issues, unless the parties resolve the dispute before judgment.
In this case, the litigation did not proceed to a final trial judgment on the merits.
The public docket shows that the case was terminated on December 17, 2025, after the parties filed a stipulation for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). (Justia Dockets & Filings)
Public reporting described the resolution as a confidential settlement. Because the settlement terms were not publicly disclosed, it would be inaccurate to claim that either side obtained a particular monetary award. (The Verge)
The settlement demonstrates an important reality of international copyright litigation.
A lawsuit does not always end with a judicial decision declaring one party the winner.
Large technology companies may use litigation to create negotiating pressure and then resolve the commercial dispute privately.
For both sides, litigation involves:
● attorneys; ● technical experts; ● discovery; ● document preservation;
● expert analysis; ● court hearings; ● international coordination; ● and substantial management time.
A confidential settlement can therefore sometimes be commercially preferable to years of litigation.
The fact that the case ended before a final merits judgment also means that the allegations in the complaint should not be presented as judicially proven facts.
That distinction is essential when publishing legal content.
The case provides several practical lessons for Chinese companies developing products for the United States.
Before releasing a game, software product, application or digital platform, companies should identify potentially relevant third-party copyrights and trademarks.
A company should preserve concept art, source files, development records and internal communications.
Independent creation evidence can become extremely valuable when similarity is later alleged.
Creative teams should understand that being inspired by an existing genre is not automatically copyright infringement.
However, copying distinctive expression can create substantial risk.
A company should review advertisements, trailers, screenshots and promotional artwork—not just the final product.
If freelancers, studios, designers or contractors participate in development, contracts should clearly address copyright ownership and representations concerning originality.
A product that is acceptable under one country's copyright framework may create different risks in another jurisdiction.
Companies planning to enter the U.S. market should therefore consider U.S. copyright and trademark review before commercial launch.
The dispute is relevant beyond video games.
Chinese companies increasingly export:
● mobile applications; ● software; ● AI products; ● online courses;● digital artwork;
● films; ● music; ● photographs; ● animations; ● advertising materials; ● and other digital content.
All of these industries can face cross-border copyright disputes.
The key lesson is that international intellectual-property compliance should become part of the product-development process.
Instead of waiting until a lawyer receives a cease-and-desist letter, companies should build an IP review process into:
product design → development → testing → marketing → launch → international distribution.
This approach can identify potential problems while they are still inexpensive to fix.
The real U.S. copyright dispute involving Company A and Company B provides a valuable example of the risks Chinese technology companies can face when entering the American entertainment and digital-content market.
The case involved a Chinese technology company, a U.S. federal court, allegations concerning a video game, copyright and trademark claims, requests for injunctive relief and ultimately a confidential settlement.
The most important lesson is not that similarity automatically equals infringement.
Instead, the case demonstrates the importance of understanding the boundary between ideas and protectable expression, maintaining evidence of independent creation, conducting copyright and trademark clearance, and reviewing promotional materials before a product enters the U.S. market.
For Chinese companies, the safest strategy is proactive.
International IP protection should begin during product development, not after a lawsuit has already been filed.
A company that maintains clear ownership records, documents independent creation, reviews third-party rights and obtains appropriate U.S. legal advice before launch will be in a significantly stronger position to defend its product and its business.
1. U.S. Federal Court Case Docket — Case No. 3:25-cv-06275, including the filing and December 2025 termination.
U.S. District Court Case Record
2. Original Federal Complaint — The filed complaint describing the copyright and trademark allegations.
3. Reuters Legal Report — Independent reporting on the filing, allegations and U.S. litigation.
Reuters — U.S. Copyright Litigation Report
4. U.S. Copyright Act, Section 106 — Official U.S. Copyright Office publication explaining the exclusive rights of copyright owners.
