have determined, the abstraction-filtration-comparison (“AFC”) test is either unnecessary or simply does not apply in cases of literal copying. See Mitek Holdings, Inc. v. Arce Eng’g Co., 89 F.3d 1548, 1555-56 n. 16 (11th Cir.1996) (explaining that the AFC test “was designed to help assess nonliteral copying of a nonliteral element, not nonliteral copying of computer code (a literal element)”); Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int’l, Inc., 49 F.3d 807, 815 (1st Cir.1995) (“While the [AFC] test may provide a useful framework for assessing the alleged nonliteral copying of computer code, we find it to be of little help in assessing whether the literal copying of a menu command hierarchy constitutes copyright infringement.”); ILOG, Inc. v. Bell Logic, LLC, 181 F.Supp.2d 3, 7 (D.Mass.2002) (<HOLDING>); Data Gen. Corp. v. Grumman Sys. Support
holding that priority of liens whether by mortgage or judgment is governed by the date of acquisition holding that the admissibility of expert testimony was governed by state law holding that if the identical function is not performed literal infringement is not possible holding that literal copying is not governed by the afc test recognizing that it is an open question whether drpa is a federal agency governed by the apa or a state agency governed by state administrative law