Intervest Construction, Inc. v. Canterbury Estate Homes, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
554 F.3d 914 (2008)
- Written by Cynthia (Anderson) Beeler, JD
Facts
In 1992, Intervest Construction, Incorporated (Intervest) (plaintiff) created a floor plan for a four-bedroom, two-bathroom house, named the Winchester. Canterbury Estates Homes, Incorporated (Canterbury) created a floor plan in 2002, called the Kensington, that had many similar features. It was also a four-bedroom, two-bath house. Additionally, both plans had a master suite, a two-car garage, a dining room, a living room, a family room, a nook, and a porch. Although the layouts of those features were similar, there were also distinct differences between the two designs. For example, the rooms in each plan had different square footage; space that was for attic access in the Winchester was treated as a bonus room in the Kensington; the nooks had different features that changed the flow of the adjoined rooms; and the kitchens, walls, and counters were placed in different areas. Intervest sued for copyright infringement. The district court found for Canterbury, basing its decision on the differences that existed between the two plans. Intervest appealed, alleging error based on the district court’s emphasis on the differences rather than the similarities between the two designs.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Birch, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
