Intervest Construction, Inc. v. Canterbury Estate Homes, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that although the floor plans shared the same overall layout, the layout was not copyrightable
• noting that not all copying constitutes infringement and that therefore the analysis must focus on only the protected expression
• finding that, “[a]t the level of protected expression, the differences between the designs are so significant that no reasonable, properly instructed jury could find the works substantially similar”
• stating that “any similarity comparison of the works at issue ... must be accomplished at the level of protected expression”
• emphasizing that “the substantial similarity analysis must focus on similarity of expression, i.e., material susceptible of copyright protection” (cleaned up)
• noting that not all copying constitutes infringement and that therefore the analysis must focus on only the protected expression

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).