This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P is an architect. P granted Ds licenses to use several colonial home designs he had created. After the licenses expired, Ds hired engineering firms to customize P's designs for their customers. Ds continued marketing P's designs, or customized versions thereof, without his consent. P filed these copyright actions in July 2010. P alleged that Ds copied the overall size, shape, and silhouette of his designs as well as the placement of rooms, windows, doors, closets, stairs, and other architectural features. P also asserted causes of action under the DMCA, which prohibits, among other things, 'intentionally removing or altering any copyright management information.' 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b). The district court dismissed this complaint in August 2011 but granted leave to file a Third Amended Complaint - the operative complaint. In part, Ds claimed that the designs they employed or created lacked substantial similarity with P's. The court dismissed the complaint and allowed a 4th attempt to more clearly state his DMCA claims. P passed on the offer, and the district court entered final judgment. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.