Shen Engineers v. Brighton, 748 F.Supp.3d 1086

Shen Engineering created structural engineering plans for model cabins in a residential development in Kamas, Utah, at architect Brighton's request, without a written contract.
Shen was paid for the initial plans and creation of two mirrored versions; these plans were registered with the Copyright Office in August 2022.
In late 2020, Shen discovered Brighton had reused these plans multiple times (over 30 repeat uses) for additional cabins in the same development, without paying additional/reuse fees.
Shen demanded a "reuse" fee (traditionally 50% of the original fee per reuse), which Brighton did not pay, although he acknowledged the reuses.
Shen brought suit for copyright infringement and unjust enrichment, seeking summary judgment on both claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of License	Implied license allowed only initial/model builds; each additional use required reuse fee.	Implied license included unlimited reuses in subdivision; this is industry standard.	Implied license was limited; defendant’s unauthorized reuses exceeded scope—liability for infringement.
Copyright Infringement	Repeated unlicensed use of plans to obtain permits/build cabins is infringement.	Plans were provided without express use limits; default is broad use.	Multiple reuses without payment were infringement.
Unjust Enrichment	Brighton was unjustly enriched by using plans for profit without additional payment to Shen.	No inequity, as Shen did not perform additional work for reuses and had no added liability.	Unjust enrichment claim preempted by Copyright Act.
Notice/Contract Requirements	No contract/written notice needed to restrict use; practice and past request for reuse fees suffice.	Lack of written restrictions means broad use—industry practice supports this.	No requirement for written limits; totality of circumstances shows restricted license.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (standard for summary judgment evaluation)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (standard for burden of proof on summary judgment)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (nonmovant must set forth specific facts to show genuine issue)
Nelson-Salabes, Inc. v. Morningside Dev., LLC, 284 F.3d 505 (implied license parameters in copyright law)
LGS Architects, Inc. v. Concordia Homes of Nevada, 434 F.3d 1150 (scope of architectural copyright licenses)