Ocean Atlantic Woodland Corp. v. DRH Cambridge Homes, Inc.
262 F. Supp. 2d 923, 2003 WL 21196507, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13055 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a copyright infringement case involving architectural or development plans, the copyright owner's recovery of the infringer's profits is limited to those profits directly attributable to the infringement, which is typically the fair market value or saved acquisition cost of the plans, not the infringer's total profits from the entire development project.
Facts:
- Ocean Atlantic Woodland Corporation ('Ocean Atlantic') acquired the copyright to two development plans created for a specific parcel of land known as the 'Liberty Grove' development.
- These plans were formally adopted by the Village of Plainfield as part of an annexation agreement governing the development of that specific parcel.
- Ocean Atlantic failed to close on the sale of the Liberty Grove land on time, thereby losing its right to develop the property.
- DRH Cambridge Homes, Inc. ('Cambridge') later acquired the rights to develop the Liberty Grove parcel.
- Cambridge, along with its engineering and landscaping contractors, proceeded to develop the land in accordance with the copyrighted plans that the village had adopted.
Procedural Posture:
- Ocean Atlantic Woodland Corporation filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against DRH Cambridge Homes, Inc., Pugsley & LaHaie, Ltd., and Cowhey, Gundmundson, Leder, Ltd. in the U.S. District Court.
- During the discovery phase of litigation, Ocean Atlantic filed motions to compel the defendants to produce extensive financial and business documents.
- In response, the defendants filed a joint motion for a protective order to limit the scope of discovery and for bifurcation of discovery.
- The District Court is issuing this memorandum order to resolve these competing discovery motions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a copyright infringement action over development plans, does the scope of permissible discovery extend to all of the alleged infringer's financial records, including profits from the completed development project and from unrelated business activities, for the purpose of calculating damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Guzman, District Judge.
No. The scope of permissible discovery does not extend to the infringer's total profits from the development project or unrelated business activities because such profits are too attenuated from the infringement of the underlying plans. A copyright owner's entitlement to recover an infringer’s profits is limited to profits flowing directly from the infringing activities. The court reasoned that any profits Cambridge might realize from developing and selling homes in Liberty Grove are the result of numerous activities—such as engineering, excavation, construction, marketing, and sales—that are far removed from the value of the initial development plans. The court found the causal link between the use of the plans and the final development profits to be too speculative and attenuated. Therefore, the proper measure of damages is limited to the value of the plans themselves, calculated as either Ocean Atlantic’s actual damages (what it paid for the plans) or the infringer's profits measured by the 'saved acquisition cost' (what a willing buyer would have paid for the plans). To allow discovery into, and recovery of, Cambridge's development profits would constitute impermissible double-counting. The court also found Ocean Atlantic's discovery requests to be vexatious, oppressive, and designed to harass the defendants rather than to obtain relevant evidence.
Analysis:
This order clarifies the boundaries of discovery and damages in copyright infringement cases concerning architectural and development plans. By holding that profits from a completed development project are too attenuated from the infringement of the initial plans, the court significantly limits the potential financial exposure for developers in similar situations. This decision reinforces the principle of causation in damage calculations, requiring a direct link between the infringement and the profits sought. It provides strong precedent for defendants to obtain protective orders against overly broad and burdensome discovery requests that appear designed to harass or drive up litigation costs rather than to uncover relevant evidence of damages.
