Home Design Services, Inc. v. Turner Heritage Homes Inc.
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10962
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Home Design Services owned a registered copyright in architectural floor plan HDS-2089 and sued Turner Heritage Homes, alleging Turner’s Laurent and Dakota plans infringed HDS-2089; a jury found infringement and awarded $127,760.
- Turner moved for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b); the district court granted the motion, concluding no reasonable jury could find substantial similarity at the level of protectable expression.
- The plans at issue are four-three split residential plans that share overall room arrangement and many common features, but also have numerous dimensional, wall-placement, fixture, and elevation differences.
- Home Design’s witnesses (CEO and architecture expert) emphasized overall massing, room layout, and some unusual shared features; Turner’s expert emphasized industry standards, customary split-plan constraints, and numerous material differences.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, applying precedent that architectural works receive "thin" protection for standard elements and that judges may resolve whether similarities concern only non-protectable elements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Turner plans are "substantially similar" to HDS-2089 at the level of protectable expression | Home Design: overall layout, massing, and several shared atypical design choices show protectable similarity | Turner: similarities reflect the unprotectable four-three split style and industry standards; differences are material | Held: No — similarities are confined to non-copyrightable/common elements; differences are dispositive as a matter of law |
| Whether a judge may grant JMOL on substantial-similarity in architectural-work cases (role of jury) | Home Design: jury was entitled to weigh the evidence; close/factbound inquiry should remain for juries | Turner: judges can and should decide when only non-protectable elements are similar; Intervest supports judge resolution | Held: Judge may decide; Intervest and related precedent permit removing the issue from the jury where only non-protectable elements account for similarity |
| Proper application of Rule 50(b) after a jury verdict | Home Design: prior denial of summary judgment and jury verdict counsel against JMOL | Turner: Rule 50(b) appropriate where no legally sufficient evidentiary basis supports the verdict | Held: Rule 50(b) properly applied — prior summary-judgment denial does not bar JMOL when verdict lacks a legally sufficient basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Intervest Constr., Inc. v. Canterbury Estate Homes, Inc., 554 F.3d 914 (11th Cir. 2008) (architectural works warrant "thin" protection; judges may resolve substantial-similarity when similarities involve nonprotectable elements)
- Oravec v. Sunny Isles Luxury Ventures, LLC, 527 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir. 2008) (substantial similarity must be assessed at the level of protected expression)
- Zalewski v. Cicero Builder Dev., Inc., 754 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2014) (customary architectural styles and industry-driven elements are unprotectable; subtle differences can preclude infringement)
- Miller's Ale House, Inc. v. Boynton Carolina Ale House, LLC, 702 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2012) (no reasonable jury could find substantial similarity where differences in layout and features predominate)
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (originality requirement; compilations receive only thin protection for selection/arrangement)
- Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc. v. Toy Loft, Inc., 684 F.2d 821 (11th Cir. 1982) ("average lay observer" standard for substantial similarity)