Savant Homes, Inc. v. Collins
809 F.3d 1133
10th Cir.2016Background
- Savant Home, Inc. holds a registered copyright in the Anders Plan, a three‑bedroom ranch floor plan embodied in a model house in Windsor, Colorado; Savant sold six Anders Plan houses.
- In 2009 the Wagners toured Savant’s model, retained builder Douglas Collins, who hired designer Stewart King, and Collins/King built two accused houses with layouts similar to the Anders Plan.
- Savant sued the Wagners, Collins, and King for copyright infringement, contributory infringement, civil conspiracy, trade dress infringement, and related claims; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims.
- Defendants submitted an expert (Rob Fisher) opining the Anders Plan consists of standard, unprotectable architectural elements/arrangements; Fisher identified only one possibly protectable detail (wrought‑iron bars on garage windows).
- Savant’s expert (Justin Larson) testified to strong overall similarities but did not identify which specific elements (or arrangements) are original/protectable; Savant otherwise relied on conclusory statements and sales of six houses.
- The district court held Savant failed to show any protectable elements or secondary meaning; the Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on copyright, contributory infringement, civil conspiracy (derivative), and trade dress grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Copyright protectability: whether Anders Plan contains protectable expression | Anders Plan contains nine original/unique elements and/or their arrangement | Anders Plan is composed of standard, unprotectable architectural elements; only garage iron bars might be protectable | Held: Savant failed to show any element or arrangement is protectable; no triable issue |
| Substantial similarity between Anders Plan and accused houses | Accused houses exhibit "shocking similarities" to Anders Plan (overall look and feel) | Even if factual copying occurred, protectable elements are absent or differ (e.g., no iron bars) so no substantial similarity | Held: No substantial similarity as to any protectable expression; summary judgment for defendants |
| Contributory infringement and civil conspiracy (derivative claims) | Defendants materially contributed and conspired to infringe | There is no underlying direct infringement, so derivative claims fail | Held: Both claims fail because direct infringement failed |
| Trade dress distinctiveness/secondary meaning | Anders Plan has inherent distinctiveness and/or secondary meaning (sales, alleged copying) | Trade dress is composed of common features lacking inherent distinctiveness; sales alone are insufficient to show secondary meaning | Held: Savant failed to show inherent distinctiveness or adequate evidence of secondary meaning; summary judgment for defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (copyright protects original expression, not ideas)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden‑shifting framework)
- Blehm v. Jacobs, 702 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2012) (distinguish protectable expression from standard elements; substantial similarity analysis)
- Country Kids ’N City Slicks, Inc. v. Sheen, 77 F.3d 1280 (10th Cir. 1996) (substantial similarity: ordinary observer test)
- Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chem. Indus., Ltd., 9 F.3d 823 (10th Cir. 1993) (abstraction‑filtration‑comparison methodology)
- Sturdza v. United Arab Emirates, 281 F.3d 1287 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (emphasizing overall look and feel and combination of elements)
- La Resolana Architects, PA v. Reno, Inc., 555 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2009) (no contributory infringement absent direct infringement)
- Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992) (trade dress protects total image/appearance)
- Sally Beauty Co. v. Beautyco, Inc., 304 F.3d 964 (10th Cir. 2002) (trade dress distinctiveness spectrum; sales alone insufficient for secondary meaning)