Lennar Homes of Texas Sales & Marketing, Ltd. v. Perry Homes, LLC
117 F. Supp. 3d 913
S.D. Tex.2015Background
- Lennar (plaintiff) designs and registered two townhouse plans (Burgundy and Bordeaux); Perry (defendant) submitted its own new townhome designs (Perry 2249 and 2255) after its architect viewed Lennar’s under-construction units and obtained Lennar floor plans while bidding on adjacent lots.
- Lennar sued for copyright infringement alleging Perry’s 2249/2255 copied Lennar’s Burgundy/Bordeaux; Lennar had registered the Burgundy and Bordeaux with the Copyright Office.
- Perry moved for summary judgment arguing (a) Lennar’s registrations are invalid (failure to disclose derivative nature), (b) any similarities arise from mandatory market/developer constraints and are unprotectable, and (c) the allegedly copied elements are not copyrightable.
- The court found disputed facts as to copying and did not accept Perry’s invalidity arguments as dispositive, but concluded that even assuming copying, the similarities were limited to unprotectable elements (general layout constrained by lot size, development criteria, and market demands).
- Because Lennar’s original contributions to the overall layouts were thin and largely dictated by external constraints, the court held that only near-verbatim copying of protectable elements would infringe and that Perry did not copy such protectable elements.
- Result: Court granted Perry’s motion for summary judgment, dismissed the action with prejudice, denied Perry’s pending evidentiary motions as moot, and declined to award attorneys’ fees to Perry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of registrations / disclosure of derivative nature | Lennar: registrations suffice; ownership of underlying iterations means registrations valid for whole designs | Perry: Burgundy/Bordeaux are derivative; failure to disclose to Copyright Office invalidates registrations | Court: Designs are derivative but omission appears immaterial; registrations sufficient to sue on entire designs where common owner; no invalidation on summary judgment |
| Originality / copyrightability of designs | Lennar: designs (as whole) are original and copyrightable despite being iterations | Perry: layouts are dictated by lot, development rules, and market — so not original/protectable | Court: Originality threshold met as factual issue, but original contribution to general layout was slight (thin copyright) |
| Factual copying (access & probative similarity) | Lennar: Perry had access (obtained plans, visited site) and plans show many layout similarities | Perry: denies actionable copying; claims it drafted plans before access or differences are substantial | Court: Genuine fact issues exist on factual copying (access and similarities) — for jury if needed |
| Substantial similarity / protectable elements | Lennar: claims protection for overall layout/‘look and feel’ as a whole | Perry: similarities are confined to unprotectable, functional/layout elements; scenes-a-faire/merger apply | Court: After filtration, similarities are to unprotectable elements (general layout); no substantial similarity to protectable expression — summary judgment for Perry |
Key Cases Cited
- Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (copyright originality requires independent creation and minimal creativity)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard and burdens)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (reasonable jury standard on genuine disputes of material fact)
- Engineering Dynamics, Inc. v. Structural Software, Inc., 26 F.3d 1335 (two-element test for copyright infringement: ownership and copying)
- Positive Black Talk, Inc. v. Cash Money Records, Inc., 394 F.3d 357 (access/probative similarity and substantial similarity framework)
- General Universal Systems, Inc. v. Lee, 379 F.3d 131 (certificate of registration is prima facie evidence of validity)
- Christopher Phelps & Assocs., LLC v. Galloway, 492 F.3d 532 (owner of derivative may sue on entire design where owner of underlying work)
- Zalewski v. Cicero Builder Dev., Inc., 754 F.3d 95 (application of scenes-a-faire and merger doctrines to architectural works)
- DeliverMed Holdings, LLC v. Schaltenbrand, 734 F.3d 616 (courts must request Register’s view under §411(b)(2) when alleged inaccurate registration information)