America's Home Place, Inc. v. Fine Built Construction of North Carolina, Inc.
2:15-cv-00197
| N.D. Ga. | Jan 29, 2018Background
- America’s Home Place (Plaintiff) owns copyright registrations for two plans: Mountainview I and Mountainview II.
- In 2014 the Neislers solicited builders in Blairsville, GA; they were shown redlined/modified Mountainview I‑B and II‑B plans by Plaintiff but ultimately contracted with Fine Built to build their home using plans drafted by Diane Wilson.
- Plaintiff sued, alleging the Neislers’ constructed home infringed the Mountainview I‑B and II‑B plans (and redlined derivatives); Defendants moved for summary judgment and challenged admissibility of a late declaration (Vandiver).
- Court partially excluded Vandiver’s materials (the late-produced Oxford plan) but allowed use of the Mountainview registrations and other Vandiver material.
- The court held Plaintiff lacked the necessary registrations/ proof to sue on the unregistered derivative Mountainview I‑B and II‑B except to the extent those derivatives reproduced protected elements of the registered originals, and concluded Plaintiff failed to identify such protected, reproduced elements.
- Because Plaintiff also failed the substantial‑similarity analysis at the level of protectable expression (numerous significant dissimilarities), the court granted Defendants’ summary judgment motions, denied Plaintiff’s motion, dismissed remaining counterclaims as appropriate, and closed the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity/ownership of copyrights | Plaintiff: owns valid registrations for Mountainview I and II; these support infringement claims | Defs: registrations don’t cover the unregistered derivative I‑B and II‑B plans at issue | Held: registrations for Mountainview I/II are valid, but Plaintiff may not base a suit on unregistered derivatives except to the extent they reproduce protected elements of the registered works; Plaintiff did not show that here |
| Registration requirement for derivative works | Plaintiff: derivative works can be protected based on underlying registration | Defs: derivative must be separately registered to support suit for the derivative | Held: generally a derivative must be registered; unregistered derivative is protected only to extent it reproduces protected material from the registered work; Plaintiff failed to show the necessary overlap |
| Proof of copying / substantial similarity | Plaintiff: overall arrangement/coordination shows substantial similarity despite differences | Defs: many significant differences in exterior/interior and an extra basement/floor; customary elements are unprotectable | Held: at protectable‑expression level, differences are numerous and significant; no substantial similarity — summary judgment for Defendants |
| Admissibility of Vandiver declaration | Plaintiff relied on Vandiver declaration for facts and plans | Defs: Vandiver not disclosed in discovery; late materials (Oxford plan) prejudicial | Held: Vandiver declaration partly excluded — Oxford plan excluded; Mountainview registration materials and other portions admitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Hickson Corp. v. Northern Crossarm Co., 357 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2004) (summary judgment burden and movant’s initial showing)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (summary judgment standards and movant’s initial burden)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (genuine issue and reasonable jury standard)
- Miller’s Ale House v. Boynton Carolina Ale House, 702 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2012) (elements of copyright claim; architectural‑works substantial similarity at protectable expression level)
- Montgomery v. Noga, 168 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 1999) (unregistered derivative can be the basis for suit only if it necessarily incorporates protected elements of a registered work)
- Intervest Constr., Inc. v. Canterbury Estate Homes, Inc., 554 F.3d 914 (11th Cir. 2009) (architectural plans: judge separates protectable from unprotectable elements; differences dispositive)
- Home Design Servs. v. Turner Heritage Homes, 825 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2016) (industry‑standard layouts yield thin protection; subtle differences can preclude infringement)
- Reed Elsevier Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (Sup. Ct. 2010) (registration prerequisite principles discussed)