Building Graphics, Inc. v. Lennar Corp.
866 F. Supp. 2d 530
W.D.N.C.2011Background
- Building Graphics designed Chadwyck, Ballantrae, Springfield; Chadwyck registered Oct 2008 (architectural work) and Nov 2008 (technical drawing); derivative Ballantrae and Springfield registered Jun/Jul 2009.
- Lennar Corp. and Lennar Carolinas contracted with Drafting & Design to redraw plans for Lennar homes; Drafting & Design allegedly used Building Graphics’ designs.
- Plaintiff alleges Lennar accessed the protected designs via Gardner’s prior UDC Homes employment, Living Concepts affiliate, and materials from UDC/Hampshire Evans Ingraham.
- Fairfax design, developed by Lessard Architectural Group, allegedly formed the basis for Somerset/3404 and then Somerlin/Hampton/Hudson/Abbey/Bluffton—a lineage Defendants claim as independent creation.
- Court finds Plaintiff owns valid copyrights but shows no genuine issue of material fact on access or substantial similarity; grants Defendants’ summary judgments.
- Record shows no clear evidence that Drafting & Design independently created the challenged designs; the court assesses ownership, access, and substantial similarity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership vs. validity of copyrights | Plaintiff owns valid copyrights | Defendants challenge ownership validity | Plaintiff owns valid copyrights |
| Access to the claimed infringing designs | Defendants had access via Gardner, Internet and cut sheets | No reasonable access shown | No genuine issue of access |
| Substantial similarity of protectable elements | Plans substantially similar in overall concept | Differences preclude substantial similarity | No substantial similarity; no infringement |
Key Cases Cited
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1991) (minimal creativity required for originality; compilation concept)
- Howard v. Sterchi, 974 F.2d 1272 (11th Cir. 1992) (architectural works involve standard features; thin protection)
- Ale House Management, Inc. v. Raleigh Ale House, Inc., 205 F.3d 137 (4th Cir. 2000) (mere geographic proximity not enough for access)
- Intervest Constr., Inc. v. Canterbury Estate Homes, Inc., 554 F.3d 914 (11th Cir. 2008) (compilations; thin protection; substantial similarity in compilations often limited)
- Sturdza v. United Arab Emirates, 281 F.3d 1287 (D.C.Cir. 2002) (requires substantial similarity for copying in copyright)