Enterprise Management Ltd. v. Warrick
717 F.3d 1112
10th Cir.2013Background
- Lippitt created and registered Diagram 1A in 1987 to depict failures in organizational change.
- She revised the diagram circa 1996 to Diagram 1B with stylistic changes and terminology updates.
- Lippitt registered Diagram 1B in 2000 and 2003; Warrick later used a similar diagram in courses and consulting.
- Warrick copied Lippitt’s diagram after receiving a copy from a student and later credited her work.
- Lippitt lost her deposit copy of Diagram 1A; she substituted a notarized description as evidence during discovery.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Warrick; the issue on appeal is whether Lippitt’s diagram is protected and copied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Lippitt’s diagram eligible for copyright protection? | Lippitt argues the diagram’s arrangement is protectable. | Warrick contends the work is unprotectable as ideas or non-creative. | Yes; protectable expression, not just ideas. |
| Did Warrick copy protectable elements of the diagram? | Direct copying shown; Warrick copied the diagram. | Claim relies on non-protectable elements; no infringement. | Direct copying established; infringement proven. |
| Does registration affect infringement liability or protection scope? | Registration satisfies prerequisites to sue; content need not be identical to original registration. | Registration formalities control; content shown must match. | Registration not prerequisite to protection; it permits suit. |
| Did Lippitt preserve Diagram 1B infringement for appeal? | Complaint plausibly supports infringement of Diagram 1B. | Diagram 1B not pleaded in district court. | Preservation allowed; evidence supports merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (idea/expression not merged; originality required for protection)
- Reno, Inc. v. Reno, 555 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2009) (copyrightable expression; selection/arrangement matter)
- Arica Institute, Inc. v. Palmer, 970 F.2d 1067 (2d Cir. 1992) (any number of ways to express ideas; diagrams like enneagrams)
- Ho v. Taflove, 648 F.3d 489 (7th Cir. 2011) (model hard to replace by expression; facts differ)
- Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp., 714 F.2d 1240 (3d Cir. 1983) (ideas may be expressed in multiple modes; protection depends on expression)