Humphreys & Partners Architects v. Lessard Design, Incorporated
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10566
| 4th Cir. | 2015Background
- HPA is a Dallas-based architecture firm that designed Grant Park, a 27-story Minneapolis condominium completed in 2004, and registered its design in 2003.
- In 2008–2012, Penrose developed Two Park Crest in McLean, Virginia; in 2010 it solicited designs from HPA and Lessard, and Lessard eventually submitted a 19-story design with three elevator cores.
- Penrose sold the project to Northwestern, which then hired Clark to construct Two Park Crest, with construction beginning January 2012.
- HPA filed suit in April 2013 alleging copyright infringement against Lessard, Clark, Penrose, and Northwestern based on the Grant Park design.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Sept. 2, 2014, concluding there was no substantial similarity and that no reasonable jury could find extrinsic similarity.
- On appeal, HPA challenges the district court’s handling of expert reports, evidentiary support for copying, and the application of copyright-law standards to architectural works.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert reports at summary judgment | District court relied on inadmissible hearsay. | Declarations from experts cured admissibility; reports could be considered. | No abuse of discretion; expert declarations allowed consideration. |
| Direct evidence of copying | Lessard’s rapid design development and Figert’s testimony show copying. | No direct evidence; Figert declined to say copying occurred. | No direct evidence of copying; district court properly found none. |
| Extrinsic similarity of overall form and arrangement | Evidence shows similar overall form and arrangement of spaces and elements. | Expert analysis shows dissimilar overall form and arrangement; protected elements are not identified. | Appellees carried burden; no nonconclusory evidence of substantial extrinsic similarity. |
| Application of extrinsic/intrinsic test to architectural works | Two-part test should apply to architectural copyright claims. | Test does not clearly apply or was misapplied to architecture. | Two-part extrinsic/intrinsic test applies to architectural copyright infringement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Universal Furniture Int’l, Inc. v. Collezione Europa USA, Inc., 618 F.3d 417 (4th Cir. 2010) (extrinsic/intrinsic similarity framework for substantial similarity)
- Bldg. Graphics, Inc. v. Lennar Corp., 708 F.3d 573 (4th Cir. 2013) (substantial similarity via extrinsic/intrinsic analysis; expert testimony relevant)
- Lyons P’ship, L.P. v. Morris Costumes, Inc., 243 F.3d 789 (4th Cir. 2001) (intrinsic vs. extrinsic similarity concepts in copyright)
- Enter. Mgmt. Ltd. v. Warrick, 717 F.3d 1112 (10th Cir. 2013) (direct copying evidence and copying standards)
- Rogers v. Koons, 960 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1992) (direct evidence of copying in a collaboration context)
- Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994) (extrinsic vs intrinsic similarity framework)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard and burden-shifting framework)
- M. Kramer Mfg. Co. v. Andrews, 783 F.2d 421 (4th Cir. 1986) (example of direct copying evidence in a different context)
- Soc’y of Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Inc. v. Gregory, 689 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2012) (direct vs circumstantial evidence distinction in copying)