Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

  • Case Opinion

Design Basics, LLC v. Lexington Homes, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

April 5, 2017, Argued; June 6, 2017, Decided

No. 16-3817

Opinion

 [***1129]  [*1096]   Hamilton, Circuit Judge. This copyright suit shows the difficulty in finding protected creative expression in a crowded field, in this case, architectural design of single-family homes. The case also shows the challenge in administering intellectual property law to discourage so-called intellectual property "trolls" while protecting genuine creativity.

Plaintiffs Design Basics, LLC; Prime Designs, Inc.; and Plan Pro, Inc. (collectively, [**2]  "Design Basics") and their affiliates claim rights to some 2700 home designs. They sued defendants Lexington Homes, Inc. and related parties (collectively, "Lexington") for copyright infringement, contending that Lexington built homes that infringed four of Design Basics' designs.

The district court granted summary judgment to Lexington, finding no evidence that Lexington ever had access to Design Basics' home plans. Without access, the court reasoned, there could be no copying and no copyright infringement. We affirm. We agree with the district court that Design Basics has no evidence of access. We also conclude that no reasonable jury could find that Lexington's accused plans bear substantial similarities to any original material in Design Basics' plans.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

A. Design Basics and the Art of the Intellectual Property Shake-down

Design Basics has been in the business of producing market-ready designs for modest single-family homes for several decades. In 2009, Patrick Carmichael and Myles Sherman purchased Design Basics as an investment opportunity. Carmichael acknowledged in his deposition that "potential copyright infringement cases influence[d his] decision [**3]  to become an owner of  [*1097]  Design Basics." He testified that proceeds from litigation have become a principal revenue stream for Design Basics.

 [***1130]  A search of the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system reveals that Design Basics has been party to over 100 federal lawsuits, the vast majority of which have been filed since the 2009 change in ownership. Nearly all involve copyright claims asserted by Design Basics. Design Basics offers its employees incentives to scout out potential copyright infringement cases, paying its employees a finder's fee in the form of a percentage of the net recovery relating to any home plans that they located. Design Basics filed this lawsuit after employee Carl Cuozzo discovered Lexington's website and its supposedly infringing plans while investigating other Design Basics cases on the Internet.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

858 F.3d 1093 *; 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9985 **; 123 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1128 ***; Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P31,108; 2017 WL 2432294

DESIGN BASICS, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LEXINGTON HOMES, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Prior History:  [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 14-CV-1102 — William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge.

Design Basics, LLC v. Lexington Homes, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140207 (E.D. Wis., Sept. 29, 2016)

CORE TERMS

plans, designs, copying, substantially similar, website, similarity, copyright infringement, district court, summary judgment, infringement, features, architectural, troll, Internet, no evidence, intellectual property, copyright protection, infringement claim, public domain, disseminated, declaration, resemble, crowded, cases, reasonable possibility, expert witness, single-family, conclusory, employees, genuine

Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Summary Judgment Review, Standards of Review, Summary Judgment, Burdens of Proof, Nonmovant Persuasion & Proof, Copyright Law, Statutory Copyright & Fixation, Protected Subject Matter, Architectural Works, Copyright Infringement Actions, Civil Infringement Actions, Elements, Elements, Copying by Defendants, Copying by Defendants, Access, Substantial Similarity, Subject Matter, Expression & Idea Distinguished, Record on Appeal, Evidence, Types of Evidence, Testimony, Expert Witnesses, Admissibility