Design Basics, LLC et al v. WK Olson Architects, Inc. et al, 1:17-cv-07432

Background

Plaintiffs Design Basics, LLC and Carmichael & Dame Designs, Inc. (CDD) create and license home architectural plans and have registered hundreds of plans with the Copyright Office; they sell single-build licenses and allege widespread piracy.
Plaintiffs identified multiple plans on WK Olson Architects’ website (olsonplans.com) that they contend copy eleven Design Basics plans and one CDD plan, alleging replication of room sizes, layouts, elevations, and the selection/arrangement of elements.
Plaintiffs filed suit alleging non-willful and willful copyright infringement, vicarious liability against William K. Olson (controlling shareholder), and a DMCA §1202 claim for removal of copyright management information (CMI). Default was entered against other defendants; WK Olson and Olson moved to dismiss.
On Rule 12(b)(6) review, the court accepted Plaintiffs’ factual allegations as true and evaluated whether Plaintiffs plausibly alleged (1) protectable, original elements and (2) copying (via access and substantial similarity).
The court denied dismissal of non-willful infringement and vicarious liability claims (finding Plaintiffs alleged access and pleaded sufficient detail on similarities and selection/arrangement), and allowed willful infringement claims to proceed (based on allegations of knowledge and removal/concealment). The court dismissed the DMCA claim with prejudice because Plaintiffs alleged copying/redrawing, not removal of CMI from Plaintiffs’ original works.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Plaintiffs sufficiently plead substantial similarity/protectable elements to show copying	Plaintiffs identified specific plan elements and alleged the selection/arrangement of elements is protectable and the defendant’s plans are "virtually identical"	WK Olson: the alleged similarities are unprotectable scènes à faire or functional/common architectural features	Denied dismissal — court finds allegations sufficient at pleading stage; cannot decide lack of protectable expression as a matter of law without fuller record
Whether Plaintiffs plausibly alleged access to permit an inference of copying	Plaintiffs allege mailed catalogs directly to WK Olson and broad online availability of plans	WK Olson: online posting alone is insufficient and Plaintiffs did not plead timing/details of mailings	Denied dismissal — pleadings of direct mailings plus online availability suffice at this stage
Whether Plaintiffs pleaded willful infringement warranting enhanced damages	Plaintiffs allege WK Olson knew of Plaintiffs’ copyrights and concealed copyright markings (removal)	WK Olson: insufficient factual allegations of willfulness	Denied dismissal — allegations of knowledge and alleged concealment suffice to plead willful infringement at this stage
Whether Plaintiffs stated a claim under the DMCA §1202 for removal of copyright management information	Plaintiffs assert WK Olson removed or omitted Plaintiffs’ CMI when creating the copied plans	WK Olson: copying/redrawing does not equal removal of CMI from Plaintiffs’ original works	Dismissed with prejudice — court concludes Plaintiffs did not allege removal/alteration of CMI from the original works, only copying/redrawing

Key Cases Cited

Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (copyright protects original constituent elements)
Hobbs v. John, 722 F.3d 1089 (7th Cir.) (district courts may resolve substantial similarity on Rule 12(b)(6) in appropriate cases)
Peters v. West, 692 F.3d 629 (7th Cir.) (access + substantial similarity framework for proving copying)
Design Basics, LLC v. Lexington Homes, Inc., 858 F.3d 1093 (7th Cir.) (originality constraints in architectural works; internet posting alone insufficient to infer access)
Nova Design Build, Inc. v. Grace Hotels LLC, 652 F.3d 814 (method for identifying protectable aspects and ordinary observer test)
Wildlife Express Corp. v. Carol Wright Sales, Inc., 18 F.3d 502 (willful infringement standard)
Selle v. Gibb, 741 F.2d 896 (striking similarity can permit inference of copying)
Bucklew v. Hawkins, Ash, Baptie & Co., 329 F.3d 923 (scènes à faire doctrine excludes commonplace features from protection)
Attia v. Soc’y of the N.Y. Hosp., 201 F.3d 50 (functional/layout elements often unprotectable)
Peter F. Gaito Architecture, LLC v. Simone Dev. Corp., 602 F.3d 57 (substantial similarity may be decided at motion to dismiss when works are before the court)