Donald A. Gardner Architects, Inc. v. Cambridge Builders, Inc.
803 F. Supp. 2d 373
E.D.N.C.2011Background
- Gardner and Allora allege Cambridge Builders, CBJC and individuals copied their copyrighted home designs without license or beyond license.
- Defendants challenge originality and scope of protection for the designs, arguing designs are generic and not protectable.
- Plaintiffs produced copyright registrations and affidavits asserting originality of the designs; defendants dispute originality and argue compilation/functional elements.
- Plaintiffs filed in 2008; certain individual defendants were dismissed by stipulation in 2010; this ruling addresses summary judgment motions and Allora’s partial summary judgment motion.
- Court addresses ownership, statute of limitations, damages, and CBJC’s liability for Allora Triplex under a limited license.
- Court enrolls that Allora Triplex was used by CBJC in Lawndale Townes, and that the license limited construction to one building; CBJC allegedly exceeded that scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership of valid copyrights | Gardner/Allora have valid registrations and originality. | Designs are not original or are unprotectable compilations. | Plaintiffs held valid copyrights; summary judgment denied on originality. |
| Statute of limitations | Infringement discovered within three years prior to filing; timely. | Earlier acts barred by three-year limit. | No time-bar; claims timely; summary judgment denied on this basis. |
| Damages | Plaintiffs entitled to actual damages plus defendants’ profits attributable to infringement. | Damages limited to licensing fee; profits not recoverable. | Damages can include profits attributable to infringement; plaintiffs entitled to request both actual damages and profits. |
| CBJC liability for Allora Triplex infringement | CBJC copied Allora Triplex beyond license. | CBJC held a multi-use license. | CBJC liable for infringement; exceeded license; Allora partial summary judgment granted against CBJC. |
Key Cases Cited
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1991) (minimum originality required for copyright)
- Intervest Constr., Inc. v. Canterbury Estate Homes, Inc., 554 F.3d 914 (11th Cir. 2008) (originality in architectural designs; protectable arrangements)
- M. Kramer Mfg. Co. v. Andrews, 783 F.2d 421 (4th Cir. 1986) (direct copying establishes liability; circumstantial proof possible)
- Universal Furn. Int’l, Inc. v. Collezione Europa USA, Inc., 618 F.3d 417 (4th Cir. 2010) (access and substantial similarity can prove copying)
- Christopher Phelps & Assocs. v. Galloway, 492 F.3d 532 (4th Cir. 2007) (profit recovery for infringement; not limited to licensing fees)
- Hotaling v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 118 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 1997) (accrual of copyright action upon knowledge of violation)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard requires no genuine issue of material fact)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 F.3d 574 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burden and inferences in plaintiff’s favor clarified)
- Storage Tech. Corp. v. Custom Hardware Eng’g & Consulting, Inc., 421 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (scope of license and copying beyond license)