Humphreys & Partners Architects, L.P. v. HRB Louisville LLC et al

Filing 113

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by Senior Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 3/17/2016, DENYING 95 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. cc: Counsel(RLK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
PLAINTIFF

HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS
ARCHITECTS, L.P.

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-cv-00706-CRS

HRB LOUISVILLE LLC, et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendants HRB Louisville, LLC, Royal/Buck Company, LLC, HRB Louisville Member
LLC, Buck SH Company, LLC, Buck Development Louisville, LLC, Buck Development, LLC,
The John Buck Company, LLC, and TJBC, Inc. (collectively, the “Defendants”) move for partial
summary judgment. Plaintiff Humphreys & Partners Architects, L.P. (“Humphreys”) brought
suit alleging copyright infringement against these Defendants and other defendants alleging
copyright infringement. Defendants now move for partial summary judgment on a single discrete
issue – whether Humphreys owns a copyright interest in the Louisville Metro Land & Design
approved Detailed District Development Plan (“District Development Plan”). See ECF No. 95-2.
A party alleging copyright infringement must prove (1) it owned the copyrighted creation
and (2) that the defendant copied original elements of the copyrighted work. See Martinez v.
McGraw, 581 F. App’x 512, 514 (6th Cir. 2014); Jones v. Blige, 558 F.3d 485, 490 (6th Cir.
2009). This Court granted Humphreys’ motion for partial summary judgment finding that
Humphreys held a valid copyright to what the Court referred to as the 12101 Louisville Design.

1

See Feb. 8, 2016 Order, ECF No. 99. Humphreys’ claims against Defendants are based on an
alleged infringement of the 12101 Louisville Design.
To establish an original work has been copied, “a plaintiff must either introduce direct
evidence of the defendant's copying or prove it indirectly by showing that the defendant had
access to the plaintiff's work and that there is a substantial similarity between it and the
defendant's work, thus giving rise to an inference of copying.” Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. UMG
Recordings, Inc., 585 F.3d 267, 274 (6th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). This “substantial
similarity” inquiry consists of a two part analysis: “first, the court must identify which aspects of
the artist's work, if any, are protectible by copyright and, second, determine whether the
allegedly infringing work is substantially similar to the protectible elements of the artist's work.”
Id. (quotations and citations omitted). The first step requires “‘filter[ing]’ out elements of the
work that are not original to the author.” Id. This includes filtering out “the indispensable or
standard aspects of a work, or those that ‘follow directly from unprotectable ideas.’” Id. “Once
the unprotectable elements have been filtered out, the two works can be compared to determine
whether they are substantially similar, a question of fact.” Id. at 275. In seeking summary
judgment that Humphreys is not the owner of a valid copyright in the District Development Plan,
Defendants are attempting to indirectly attack whether they copied original elements of the
12101 Louisville Design.
Defendants seek to filter out some potentially unprotectable elements to prepare for an
eventual substantial similarity analysis under the guise of whether Humphreys owns the
copyright to the District Development Plan. This essentially constitutes arguing in reverse the
infringement prong of the claim. This is not, as Defendants suggest at the outset of their briefing,
merely a motion seeking to determine whether Humprehys has a copyright claim over the
2

District Development Plan. Humphreys admits that it does not claim to own the District
Development Plan. See Resp. 2 – 3, ECF No. 102.
Without full briefing on whether Defendants copied original elements of the 12101
Louisville Design, this Court cannot decide a sliver of that analysis discretely.
The Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND
ADJUDGED that the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (DN 95).
SO ORDERED.

March 17, 2016

C al R Smpo I , ei J d e
h r s . i sn I Sno u g
e
I
r
U i dSae Ds i C ut
nt tt ir t o r
e
s tc

3