DOCSLIB.ORG

Do Those Plans Infringe on My Plans? Depends Where You Are

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Do Those Plans Infringe on My Plans? Depends Where You Are Intellectual Property& Technology Law Journal Edited by the Technology and Proprietary Rights Group of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP VOLUME 32 • NUMBER 10 • NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2020 Do Those Plans Infringe on My Plans? Depends Where You Are Ben Patrick he primary intellectual property protection to the author’s copyrighted work.1 In the context Tafforded for construction designs is copyright, of copyright infringement, substantial similarity is a which protects the author of construction designs term of art. The exact meaning of substantial simi- against having competitors steal their unique designs larity, and the process for determining whether one and creativity. Copyright infringement occurs work is substantially similar to another, varies from when someone other than the author or a license jurisdiction to jurisdiction. holder reproduces the copyrighted work, prepares a derivative work based on the copyrighted work, or prepares a work that is impermissibly similar to The U.S. Court of Appeals for the the copyrighted work. Generally, an author must Ninth Circuit’s test for evaluating the prove three things in order to demonstrate copy- substantial similarity of two works right infringement: entails a bifurcated analysis. • The author is the owner of a valid copyright in the allegedly infringed work; This article analyzes how different federal court circuits have articulated the test for substantial • The defendant had access to the copyrighted similarity in construction designs. As will be dis- work; and cussed herein, the differences in how various fed- eral circuits articulate the test have major effects on • The allegedly infringing work is substantially how copyright infringement cases in those circuits similar to the copyrighted work. should be prosecuted. Among other issues, how the substantial similarity test is articulated in a jurisdic- The defendant’s work infringes on the author’s tion has a substantial effect on how expert witness copyrighted work only if it is substantially similar testimony can be used in a case in that jurisdiction. THE EXTRINSIC/INTRINSIC TEST Ben Patrick is a partner at Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, representing companies in the construction industry, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s including general contractors, engineers, architects, and sureties. test for evaluating the substantial similarity of two He may be reached at [email protected]. works entails a bifurcated analysis. First, the court performs the “extrinsic test,” and at issue, and “testified regarding the differences of objectively considers whether the two works share the key elements of the [architectural] plans.”11 He substantially similar ideas. also highlighted disparities in the kitchen designs, Second, the jury performs the “intrinsic test,” and gabled entries, and stairways of the two town- determines whether an ordinary observer would homes.12 Ultimately, the jury found that none of perceive that the two works express those shared the defendants’ drawings or works infringed upon ideas in a substantially similar way. the plaintiff’s copyrights. The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth2 and On appeal, the Eight Circuit reasoned that the Eighth3 Circuits also use this test. “only issue before the jury was whether the expres- sion in [the defendants’] works was substantially Extrinsic Analysis Stage similar to the expression in [the plaintiff’s] works.”13 The extrinsic test involves an examination of And because expert opinion is not relevant to that “specific criteria which can be listed and analyzed.”4 intrinsic analysis, the district court abused its dis- Expert testimony is often admissible to help iden- cretion in admitting the expert’s testimony.14 Thus, tify these criteria and inform the court’s compara- the court reversed the district court’s judgment and tive analysis.5 ordered a new trial to determine whether the two works contained substantially similar designs. Intrinsic Analysis Stage If the court finds that the two works share copy- THE INTENDED AUDIENCE TEST rightable ideas, the case advances to the fact finder Other federal appellate courts, including the U.S. for the intrinsic analysis. This test does not hinge Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Tenth,15 and D.C. on specific objective criteria. Rather, it asks what Circuits,16 use a different bifurcated analysis to deter- “the ordinary reasonable person” perceives about mine whether two works are substantially similar. the two works. Expert opinions are not relevant to In step one, the court identifies what aspects of a that inquiry.6 Thus, litigants generally may not pres- work, if any, are copyrightable.17 ent expert testimony during the intrinsic stage of The second step asks whether, from the perspec- analysis.7 tive of the work’s intended audience, “the allegedly infringing work is ‘substantially similar’ to the pro- tectable elements of the [copyrighted] work.”18 The court reversed the district This test is also referred to as the “abstract filtra- court’s judgment and ordered a new tion” test. trial to determine whether the two works contained substantially similar Protectable Elements Stage designs. The first part of this test is a question of law that requires the court to “filter out” elements of the copyrighted work that are not copyrightable In Rottlund Co. v. Pinnacle Corp.,8 the Eighth (hence the “filtration” portion of the “abstract filtra- Circuit vacated a jury verdict because the district tion” test).19 Because courts are reluctant to admit court admitted expert testimony during the intrinsic expert testimony on questions of law, the Sixth stage of analysis. There, the plaintiff sued a group of Circuit and D.C. Circuit “apply a more stringent homebuilders and an architectural firm for infring- standard [than the Ninth Circuit] regarding when ing its copyrighted architectural designs and works.9 to allow expert testimony on the first part of the Before trial, the district court performed the extrin- test.”20 Nonetheless, these courts will admit expert sic test, granting partial summary judgment for the testimony so long as it helps to “identify whether plaintiff after finding that the ideas expressed in the there are original design elements present” in the defendants’ technical drawings were substantially plaintiff’s work.21 similar to the copyrighted works.10 At trial, certain of the defendants presented the Substantial Similarity Stage testimony of an architectural expert witness. That During the second prong of the test – the sub- expert created electronic overlays of the townhomes stantial similarity analysis – the Sixth and D.C. 2 Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal Volume 32 • Number 10 • November-December 2020 Circuits apply a more refined standard than the audience of construction professionals. If the court simple “ordinary observer” standard of the Ninth accepts this argument, expert testimony should be and Second Circuits. This standard asks who is the admissible during the substantial similarity analysis. “ordinary observer” of the copyrighted work? That is, who is the intended audience?22 THE ORDINARY OBSERVER TEST Under this standard, expert testimony is prohib- The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the First,27 ited if the intended audience of a copyrighted work Second,28 Third,29 Fifth,30 Seventh,31 and Eleventh is the lay public.23 However, if the intended audi- Circuits32 use what is commonly referred to as an ence is expected to possess some specialized exper- “ordinary observer” test. A court summarized the tise, “the specialist’s perception of similarity may “ordinary observer” test for substantial similarity as: be much different from the lay observer’s, and it is “where an average lay observer would recognize appropriate in such cases to consider similarity from the alleged copy as having been appropriated from the specialist’s perspective.”24 the copyrighted work.”33 In other words, litigants may use expert testimony if the trier of fact should consider the substantial similarity determination from the perspective of a A court summarized the “ordinary specialist. The expert’s job in these cases is “to edu- observer” test for substantial cate the trier of fact” about those elements of a work similarity as: “where an average lay for which the specialized audience will look.25 observer would recognize the alleged The admissibility of expert testimony in courts copy as having been appropriated applying this test thus hinges on whether the from the copyrighted work.” intended audience for architectural designs is the general public. No court has specifically ruled on that question. However, litigants may be able to Expert testimony is usually admissible if it will introduce expert testimony by arguing that their assist the trier of fact with deciding whether an architectural designs are not targeted at the general infringement occurred. The expert must rely on public: such designs are created to help construc- copyrightable expressions when analyzing the sub- tors, engineers, and other specialized audiences cre- stantial similarity of two works; if an expert relies ate buildings.26 on uncopyrightable ideas, the report and testimony are excludable.34 It often comes as a surprise to architects and It is critical to conceptually distinguish engineers (and lawyers) that juries may be asked to between the designs themselves and decide if a particular construction design infringes the built structure. on another design without the aid of any testi- mony from experts. Nevertheless, such is the case in many states. The lawyer who is forewarned is It is critical to conceptually distinguish between also forearmed, and can structure her or his case to the designs themselves and the built structure. The take advantage of the state of the law in the state in intended audience for the built structure is likely which the case is venued. to be the general public. But that is a wholly sep- arate copyright from the copyright in the design Notes drawings. And, as discussed earlier, design drawings 1. Courts commonly hold that copyright infringement can do not infringe on built structure copyrights.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE CALLAWAY GOLF COMPANY, ) ) Plaintiff/Defendant-in-Counterclaim, ) ) v. ) ) Civil Action No. 01-669-KAJ DUNLOP SLAZENGER GROUP AMERICAS, ) INC., d/b/a MAXFLI, ) ) Defendant/Plaintiff-in-Counterclaim. ) MEMORANDUM ORDER I. Introduction Presently before me is a motion (D.I. 364) filed by Dunlop Slazenger Group Americas, Inc. d/b/a Maxfli (“Dunlop”) seeking reconsideration of the May 13, 2004 Memorandum Opinion and Order (Docket Item [“D.I.”] 358, 359) in which I granted Callaway Golf Company’s (“Callaway”) motion for partial summary judgment on Dunlop’s counterclaim for misappropriation of trade secrets related to Dunlop’s polyurethane golf ball technology. In a separately filed motion (D.I 366), Dunlop also seeks reconsideration of the part of my Opinion and Order dated May 18, 2004 (D.I. 361, 362) in which I granted Callaway’s motion for partial summary judgment on Dunlop’s claims for negligent hiring, training, supervision, and/or retention of employees, conversion and unjust enrichment. I have jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, and 1367. For the reasons that follow, the motions will be denied. 1 II. Background Because the factual and procedural history of this case is set forth in several prior rulings, see Memorandum Opinion dated May 13, 2004 (D.I. 359), Memorandum Opinion dated May 18, 2004 (D.I. 362), Memorandum Order dated May 18, 2004 (D.I. 360), and Memorandum Order dated May 21, 2004 (D.I. 363), it will not be repeated here. Rather, the facts pertinent to the motions currently before me are incorporated in the discussion below.
    [Show full text]
  • The Freedom to Copy: Copyright, Creation, and Context
    The Freedom to Copy: Copyright, Creation, and Context Olufunmilayo B. Arewa* Although much separates them musically, George Harrison and Michael Bolton share a common legal fate. Both have been held liable in copyright infringement cases in which a court articulated theories of liability based on subconscious infringement. This Article discusses how decisions in the Bolton, Harrison, and other copyright infringement cases reflect a common failing. Such decisions highlight the incomplete nature of the theories of creativity and creation processes in copyright doctrine. After discussing current approaches to questions of creation, this Article suggests ways in which copyright theory can better incorporate a contextualized understanding of creativity and creation processes. Creativity in copyright is frequently characterized as not involving copying, which is typically thought to be antithetical to both originality and creativity. This stigmatization of copying, however, means that copyright theory cannot adequately account for the reality of not infrequent similarities between works that are a result of copying both ideas and expression in the creation of new works. This missing theoretical link has significant implications for copyright in practice. The lack of legal analysis of the full range of creativity and processes of creation is also a major reason why copyright theory often has such difficulty delineating what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate copying of existing works. * Associate Professor, Northwestern University School of Law. A.B. Harvard College; M.A. Anthropology, Ph.D. Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley; A.M. Applied Economics, University of Michigan; J.D., Harvard Law School. For their helpful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts, I am indebted to Margaret Chon, Julie Cohen, Paul Heald, Kevin Jon Heller, Andrew Koppelman, Roberta Rosenthal Kwall, Jacqueline Lipton, Andrew P.
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to Copyright & Plagiarism
    A GUIDE TO COPYRIGHT & PLAGIARISM Work that is submitted to the Scholastic Art & Writing Awards must not be plagiarized or violate copyright laws. If a submitted work is plagiarized and/or violates copyright law, the work will be disqualified from the Scholastic Awards. To avoid this from happening, please review these guidelines for submitting your work. PLAGIARISM IS DIFFERENT FROM A COPYRIGHT VIOLATION PLAGIARISM is an ethical violation. Plagiarism is failing to cite sources and engaging in the act of passing someone else’s work or ideas off as one’s own. • If you take another person’s words, materials, images, etc. without citing them (i.e. if you pass someone else’s work off as your own), the work is plagiarized. This applies even if you have only copied a part, rather than the whole, of another’s work. A COPYRIGHT is a property right. Copyright is a form of legal protection prohibiting others from copying one’s creative work without permission. • Just as someone owns a car and another person may not steal it, an artist or writer owns the rights to the creative expression of his/her own original work and another person may not steal it by copying it without permission. • Copyrights to a work arise as soon as the work is fixed to a tangible form. For example, an idea for a painting is not protected until the idea is actually expressed on a canvas or in another tangible form. Submissions that contain plagiarism and/or copyright violations should not be submitted to the scholastic awards.
    [Show full text]
  • Substantial Similarity” Infringement Test
    LCB_23_2_Article_3_Sprigman (Do Not Delete) 6/13/2019 9:29 PM THE FILTRATION PROBLEM IN COPYRIGHT’S “SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITY” INFRINGEMENT TEST by Christopher Jon Sprigman* and Samantha Fink Hedrick** Copyright protects original artistic and literary expression. It does not protect ideas, facts, or other elements that may be found in artistic and literary works but which Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act, or the judge-made merger and scènes à faire doctrines, place outside the scope of copyright protection. The principle that copyright protects expression but not ideas is easy enough to ar- ticulate, but actually implementing it in copyright infringement litigation is considerably more difficult. This Article focuses not on the theory of idea/expression boundary-setting, but on the mechanics. In particular, how can we make sure that the distinction between protectable expression and unprotectable ideas is faithfully reflected in infringement verdicts? To implement the copyright infringement standard, judges typically engage in a process of “filtration,” by which they separate out ideas and other unprotectable elements of a work. But this procedure does not, by itself, ensure that the idea/expression distinction plays its intended role in the ultimate decision regarding infringement, especially when that decision is made by a jury. If the court’s initial filtration is to have any role in ensuring that infringement is found only on the basis of similarity of protected elements, the jury must be instructed regarding the elements of the works at issue that are protected by copyright and those that are not. But in some cases, instruc- tions may not be enough.
    [Show full text]
  • Substantial Similarity in Literary Infringement Cases: a Chart for Turbid Waters
    UCLA UCLA Entertainment Law Review Title Substantial Similarity in Literary Infringement Cases: A Chart for Turbid Waters Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0m10v6t3 Journal UCLA Entertainment Law Review, 21(1) ISSN 1073-2896 Author Helfing, Robert F. Publication Date 2014 DOI 10.5070/LR8211027175 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Substantial Similarity in Literary Infringement Cases: A Chart for Turbid Waters Robert F. Helfing* As home to thatfictional piece of real estate known as Hollywood, the Ninth Circuit has dealt with the copyright law issue of substantial similarity more than any other jurisdiction,yet it has not developed useful principlesfor analyzing it. This article examines the history of the Ninth Circuit's two-step test for substantialsimilarity in literary in- fringement cases, showing how a quirk in the evolution of the test has created a confusing and ineffectual body of law on the subject. The ar- ticle argues that the courts have underestimated the complexity of the issue and have given too much credit to their own judgment, unaided by expert input. The absence of a genuine understandingof the issue has led courts to look for substantial similarity where it cannot be found: in the individual elements of literary works. The article pre- sents a proposed rule to re-direct the court's inquiryfrom the individ- ual elements of the work, where copyright protection cannot be found, to the artistic structure of the work, where it must be found if it exists at all. Robert F. Helfing is a senior partner and head of the Intellectual Property Department of Sedgwick LLP.
    [Show full text]
  • Similar Secrets
    Similar Secrets Joseph P. Fishman* & Deepa Varadarajan** Abstract. A foundational question in every dispute over intellectual property is whether the defendant’s product is too similar to the plaintiff’s. For almost all intellectual property regimes, an extensive body of case law and academic commentary has examined how such similarity should be measured. Trade secrecy, however, remains a remarkable exception. In trade secrecy cases, just as in other intellectual property cases, the defendant’s good or method can diverge markedly from what the plaintiff developed. Yet it turns out that trade secret case law provides little guidance for assessing how much similarity is too much. Te standard remains, fttingly but frustratingly, a secret. Tis Article takes the frst close look at what that standard should be. We argue that trade secrecy’s similarity framework is currently asking an incomplete set of questions. It inquires almost exclusively into the defendant’s innovation process, instructing fact-fnders to determine whether the defendant had acquired any advantage from familiarity with the secret. In doing so, it wrongly skips over an inquiry into the end product or method that the defendant is actually exploiting. A better test would consider not only the defendant’s beneft from knowing the secret, but also the kind of good that the beneft ultimately translates into. Under our proposal, claims for misappropriation through either improper acquisition or disclosure would remain largely the same. But misappropriation through use would change. A defendant wouldn’t be liable for using a lawfully acquired secret unless it is exploiting a good that incorporates material elements from the owner’s secret in a manner that the plaintiff actually foresaw or, given industry trends, could reasonably have foreseen.
    [Show full text]
  • The Audience in Intellectual Property Infringement
    NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW PUBLIC LAW & LEGAL THEORY RESEARCH PAPER SERIES WORKING PAPER NO. 13-31 LAW & ECONOMICS RESEARCH PAPER SERIES WORKING PAPER NO. 13-19 The Audience in Intellectual Property Infringement Jeanne C. Fromer and Mark A. Lemley June 2013 The Audience in Intellectual Property Infringement Jeanne C. Fromer New York University School of Law Mark A. Lemley Stanford Law School John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics Stanford Law School Stanford, California 94305 Working Paper Series Paper No. 447 This paper can be downloaded without charge from the Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection http://ssrn.com/abstract=2272235 [FROMER & LEMLEY, THE AUDIENCE IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY May 30, 2013 INFRINGEMENT] The Audience in Intellectual Property Infringement1 Jeanne C. Fromer2 & Mark A. Lemley3 Every IP right has its own definition of infringement. In this paper, we suggest that this diversity of legal rules is largely traceable to differences in the audience in IP cases. Patent, trademark, copyright, and design patent each focus on a different person as the fulcrum for evaluating IP infringement. The fact that patent law focuses on an expert audience while trademark looks to a consumer audience explains many of the differences in how patent and trademark cases are decided. Expert audiences are likely to evaluate infringement based on the technical similarity between the plaintiff’s and defendant’s works. Consumers, by contrast, are likely to pay more attention to market substitution and less attention to how things work under the hood. Understanding the different audiences in IP infringement is critical to understanding how the IP regimes define infringement.
    [Show full text]
  • Toward a Definition of Striking Similarity in Infringement Actions for Copyrighted Musical Works John R
    Journal of Intellectual Property Law Volume 10 | Issue 1 Article 5 October 2002 Toward a Definition of Striking Similarity in Infringement Actions for Copyrighted Musical Works John R. Autry Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/jipl Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation John R. Autry, Toward a Definition of Striking Similarity in Infringement Actions for Copyrighted Musical Works, 10 J. Intell. Prop. L. 113 (2002). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/jipl/vol10/iss1/5 This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Georgia Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Intellectual Property Law by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Georgia Law. Please share how you have benefited from this access For more information, please contact [email protected]. Autry: Toward a Definition of Striking Similarity in Infringement Action NOTES TOWARD A DEFINITION OF STRIKING SIMILARITY IN INFRINGEMENT ACTIONS FOR COPYRIGHTED MUSICAL WORKS Federal jurists in the United States have had great difficulty formulating the appropriate standard by which to adjudicate an alleged infringement of a copyrighted musicalwork.' A plaintiff alleging copyright infringement must show ownership of a valid copyright and misappropriation of original elements of the at-issue work.' Proof of a valid copyright is easily met;3 however, establishing that a defendant copied the original elements of one's musical work can be onerous and time-consuming. Courts have searched (often, in vain) for a straightforward "test" that allows plaintiffs to introduce evidence appropriate to copyright causes of action but also acknowledges the unique nature of music among the subject matter covered by copyright law.5 Courts have defined two methods for proving substantive copying of an original work.
    [Show full text]
  • A Casebook on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights – 4Th Edition a Casebook on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights
    L.T.C. Harms L.T.C. A Casebook on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights 4th Edition L.T.C. Harms A Casebook on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights – 4 th Edition A Casebook on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights 4th Edition L.T.C. Harms The user is allowed to reproduce, distribute, adapt, translate and publicly perform this publication, including for commer- cial purposes, without explicit permission, provided that the content is accompanied by an acknowledgement that WIPO is the source and that it is clearly indicated if changes were made to the original content. Adaptation/translation/derivatives should not carry any of- ficial emblem or logo, unless they have been approved and validated by WIPO. Please contact us via the WIPO website to obtain permission. For any derivative work, please include the following dis- claimer: 'The Secretariat of WIPO assumes no liability or re- sponsibility with regard to the transformation or translation of the original content.' When content published by WIPO, such as images, graphics, trademarks or logos, is attributed to a third-party, the user of such content is solely responsible for clearing the rights with the rights holder(s). To view a copy of this license, please visit https://creative- commons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/ The designations employed and the presentation of mate- rial throughout this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WIPO concern- © WIPO, 2018 ing the legal status of any country, territory or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers World Intellectual Property Organization or boundaries.
    [Show full text]
  • Not (Necessarily) Narrower: Rethinking the Relative Scope of Copyright Protection for Designs
    IP Theory Volume 3 Issue 2 Article 4 Spring 2013 Not (Necessarily) Narrower: Rethinking the Relative Scope of Copyright Protection for Designs Sarah Burstein University of Oklahoma Norman Campus, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ipt Part of the Civil Law Commons, Commercial Law Commons, Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, Law and Economics Commons, Legislation Commons, and the Rule of Law Commons Recommended Citation Burstein, Sarah (2013) "Not (Necessarily) Narrower: Rethinking the Relative Scope of Copyright Protection for Designs," IP Theory: Vol. 3 : Iss. 2 , Article 4. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ipt/vol3/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in IP Theory by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. IPtheory Volume 3: Issue 2 Not (Necessarily) Narrower: Rethinking the Relative Scope of Copyright Protection for Designs Sarah Burstein* There is ongoing and long-standing debate about whether the United States should provide more intellectual property protection for designs and, if so, what form that protection should take.1 A number of prior commentators have argued that the United States should protect designs using copyright or a copyright-like sui generis regime.2 These commentators often base their arguments, at least in part, on the assertion that copyright protection is narrower than design patent protection.3 Although commentators sometimes point to various copyright doctrines in support of this assertion,4 the basic premise—i.e., that a “right to prevent copying”5 of designs would be narrower than design patent protection—seems to be generally accepted as a truism.
    [Show full text]
  • 205829 03 Substantial Similarity in Copyright Law P4 1..62
    Chapter 3 Tests for Substantial Similarity § 3:1 Ordinary Observer and More Discerning Ordinary Observer § 3:1.1 Second Circuit [A] Ordinary Observer Test [B] More Discerning Ordinary Observer Test [C] The Sliding Scale of Access and Probative Similarity [D] Summary Judgment, Motion to Dismiss, and Preliminary Injunction 5/19/2017 § 3:1.2 First Circuit [A] Summary Judgment, Motion to Dismiss, and Preliminary Injunction § 3:1.3 Third Circuit [A] Summary Judgment, Motion to Dismiss, and Preliminary Injunction [B] Special Test for Complex Subjects Including Computer Programs § 3:1.4 Fifth Circuit [A] Summary Judgment, Motion to Dismiss, and Preliminary Injunction § 3:1.5 Seventh Circuit Proofs [A] The Role of Access and the Inverse Ratio Rule [B] Summary Judgment, Motion to Dismiss, and Preliminary Injunction § 3:2 Extrinsic/Intrinsic Test § 3:2.1 Ninth Circuit [A] Origin of the Extrinsic/Intrinsic Test 4th [B] Evolution of the Extrinsic/Intrinsic Test [C] Analytic Dissection As Part of the Extrinsic Test [D] Intermediate Steps Between Krofft and Shaw [E] The Role of Access and the Inverse Ratio Rule (Osterberg/Osterberg, Rel. #14, 5/17) 3–1 SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITY IN COPYRIGHT LAW [F] Summary Judgment Under the Extrinsic/ Intrinsic Test [G] Preliminary Injunctions Under the Ninth Circuit Test [H] Difficulties in Applying the Extrinsic/ Intrinsic Test [I] Motion to Dismiss § 3:2.2 Fourth Circuit [A] Intended Audience Test [B] Intended Audience in Computer Cases [C] Intended Audience for Works Marketed to Children [D] Intended Audience Versus Ordinary Observer [E] Advantages and Disadvantages of the Intended Audience Test [F] Summary Judgment, Motion to Dismiss, and Preliminary Injunction § 3:2.3 Eighth Circuit [A] Summary Judgment, Motion to Dismiss, and Preliminary Injunction § 3:3 Abstraction/Filtration/Comparison 5/19/2017 § 3:3.1 Tenth Circuit [A] Summary Judgment and Preliminary Injunction § 3:3.2 Sixth Circuit [A] Summary Judgment, Motion to Dismiss, and Preliminary Injunction § 3:3.3 D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 4:14-Cv-01094 Document 87 Filed in TXSD on 07/24/15 Page 1 of 74
    Case 4:14-cv-01094 Document 87 Filed in TXSD on 07/24/15 Page 1 of 74 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION LENNAR HOMES OF TEXAS SALES § AND MARKETING, LTD., § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. H-14-1094 § PERRY HOMES, LLC, § § Defendant. § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Lennar Homes of Texas Sales and Marketing, Ltd. ("Lennar") brought this copyright action against Perry Homes, LLC ("Perry") alleging that two of Perry's townhome designs infringe on Lennar's copyrighted works. Pending before the court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 22). For the reasons stated below, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted, and this action will be dismissed. I . Background Lennar and Perry are competing homebuilders. In 2013 Lennar contracted to build townhomes in Phase I of Creekside Park, a development in the Woodlands, Texas. 1 Lennar built two models of townhomes in Phase I, the Burgundy and the Bordeaux. 2 Each model IDeclaration of Sam Teuton, Exhibit 4 to Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ("Plaintiff's Response"), Docket Entry No. 34-1, p. 131 • 6. Case 4:14-cv-01094 Document 87 Filed in TXSD on 07/24/15 Page 2 of 74 was a modified version of an earlier Lennar design.3 In July of 2013 The Woodlands put lots in Phase II of Creekside Park up for bid. 4 Homebuilders had two weeks to submit their bids, including proposed floor plans and elevations. 5 Perry did not have preexisting townhome designs that fit the developer's criteria.
    [Show full text]