%PDF-1.3
%%
%%Page: 1 1
4 0 obj
<<
/Length 5 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 652.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
127.326 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(PUBLISHED) Tj
/F1 20 Tf 85 Tz
-124.106 -28.4 Td
2 Tw
(UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
75.476 -18 Td
1.2 Tw
(FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-78.696 -18 Td
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
0 0 Td
183.8 0 Td
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-2.18 -17.6 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -2.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(C) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HRISTOPHER) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HELPS) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( & A) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOCIATES) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
(LLC,) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
84.8635 -12.5 Td
(Plaintiff-Appellant,) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-2.176 -18 Td
(v.) Tj
-82.6875 -18 Td
(R. W) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(AYNE) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( G) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLOWAY) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
79.148 -12.5 Td
(Defendant-Appellee,) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
3.5395 -18 Td
(v.) Tj
148.6462 -12.5 Td
(No. 05-2266) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-49.7137 -1.4 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -4.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(S) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IMONINI) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( B) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(UILDERS) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, I) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NCORPORATED) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
63.9485 -12.5 Td
(Third Party Defendant.) Tj
-63.9485 -18 Td
173 0 Td
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-173 -18 Td
(D) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ONALD) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A. G) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARDNER) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RCHITECTS) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
(I) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NCORPORATED) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; D) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ONALD) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A. G) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARDNER) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
(I) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NCORPORATED) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; F) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RANK) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( B) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ETZ) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(A) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOCIATES) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, I) Tj
/F2 8 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NCORPORATED) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
40.3045 -12.5 Td
(Amici Supporting Appellant.) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
141.3155 -8.6 Td
1.6 Ts
2 Tw
() Tj
0 Ts
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-126.3923 -24.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(Appeal from the United States District Court) Tj
-26.1032 -11.8 Td
(for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.) Tj
35.9665 -11.9 Td
(Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge.) Tj
62.0985 -11.9 Td
(\(CA-03-429-3\)) Tj
-27.353 -24.2 Td
(Argued: October 24, 2006) Tj
-4.1515 -23.8 Td
(Decided: February 12, 2007) Tj
-79.1038 -24.2 Td
(Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Judges.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-16.5812 -48 Td
.17 Tw
(Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by published opinion.) Tj
0 -11.8 Td
1.32 Tw
(Judge Niemeyer wrote the opinion, in which Judge Motz and Judge) Tj
0 -11.9 Td
1.2 Tw
(Traxler joined. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 144 652.5 cm
0 G
.9 w 0 -72.35 m 183.8 -72.35 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -182.6 m 186.6 -80.2 l s
.5 w 0 -232.55 m 173 -232.55 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -302 m 186.6 -199.6 l s
.9 w 0 -308.95 m 183.3 -308.95 l s
.5 w 0 -464.85 m 324 -464.85 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
ET
Q
endstream
endobj
5 0 obj
3802
endobj
3 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F3 8 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 4 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 2 2
12 0 obj
<<
/Length 13 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F1 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
134.2045 -8 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(COUNSEL) Tj
/F1 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-134.2045 -25.6 Td
1.92 Tw
(ARGUED:) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( Louis K. Bonham, OSHA & LIANG, L.L.P., Houston,) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.1 Tw
(Texas, for Appellant. W. Thad Adams, III, ADAMS & EVANS, P.A.,) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.22 Tw
(Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. ) Tj
/F1 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(ON BRIEF:) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( Albert P. Allan,) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
2.28 Tw
(SUMMA, ALLAN & ADDITON, P.A., Charlotte, North Carolina,) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
5.02 Tw
(for Appellant. Matthew J. Ladenheim, Kathryn A. Gromlovits,) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.65 Tw
(ADAMS & EVANS, P.A., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
4.2 Tw
(Wallace K. Lightsey, Frank S. Holleman, III, Troy A. Tessier,) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
2.71 Tw
(WYCHE, BURGESS, FREEMAN & PARHAM, P.A., Greenville,) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(South Carolina, for Amici Supporting Appellant.) Tj
/F1 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
136.7632 -43.7 Td
(OPINION) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-136.7632 -25.5 Td
(NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge: ) Tj
12 -25.5 Td
2.78 Tw
(After R. Wayne Galloway began construction of his retirement) Tj
-12 -12.5 Td
.78 Tw
(home on Lake Wylie, near Charlotte, North Carolina, using architec-) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.88 Tw
(tural plans designed and copyrighted by Christopher Phelps & Asso-) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.66 Tw
(ciates, LLC \("Phelps & Associates"\), without permission, Phelps &) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
2.8 Tw
(Associates commenced this action against Galloway for copyright) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.97 Tw
(infringement. Phelps & Associates sought damages, disgorgement of) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.95 Tw
(profits, and injunctive relief. A jury found that Galloway infringed) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.11 Tw
(Phelps & Associates' copyright and awarded it $20,000 in damages,) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.68 Tw
(the fee that Phelps & Associates traditionally charged for such plans.) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.23 Tw
(The jury also found that Galloway had realized no profits to disgorge.) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.78 Tw
(The district court thereafter declined to enter an injunction, finding) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
2.61 Tw
(that the jury verdict had made Phelps & Associates "whole," and) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.77 Tw
(entered judgment in favor of Phelps & Associates for $20,000. From) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.33 Tw
(that judgment, Phelps & Associates appeals, requesting a new trial on) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.5 Tw
(damages and the entry of an injunction prohibiting the future lease or) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.35 Tw
(sale of the infringing house and mandating the destruction or return) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(of the infringing plans. ) Tj
12 -25.5 Td
.05 Tw
(We agree with Phelps & Associates that the district court erred dur-) Tj
-12 -12.5 Td
1.55 Tw
(ing the damages phase of trial in instructing the jury that Phelps &) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.53 Tw
(Associates' copyright was a derivative work. As we explain herein,) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.41 Tw
(Phelps & Associates held a copyright in the entire work manifested) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -159.15 m 324 -159.15 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
144 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(2) Tj
62.4933 0 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HRISTOPHER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HELPS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( & A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOC) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(. v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLOWAY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
13 0 obj
3628
endobj
11 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 12 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 3 3
15 0 obj
<<
/Length 16 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
.17 Tw
0 Tc
(in Galloway's house. We conclude, however, that the error was harm-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.78 Tw
(less. We also reject Phelps & Associates' challenges to evidentiary) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.41 Tw
(rulings. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment incorporating the jury's) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(verdict. ) Tj
12 -25.2 Td
.66 Tw
(We agree with Galloway's contention that the court in the circum-) Tj
-12 -12.3 Td
3.42 Tw
(stances presented here may not issue a permanent injunction, as) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.96 Tw
(requested by Phelps & Associates, prohibiting Galloway from ever) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
3.36 Tw
(leasing or selling the house. Not only would such an injunction) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.02 Tw
(unduly restrain the alienation of real property, it would violate the) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.96 Tw
("first sale doctrine" in 17 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.96 Tw
(109\(a\), which we hold authorizes) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.5 Tw
(Galloway to sell or otherwise dispose of the house as a copy for) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
3.3 Tw
(which the remedies in a copyright action have been paid. Other) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.68 Tw
(injunctive relief, however, might be available in applying the general) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
3.45 Tw
(principles of equity, as required by ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(eBay Inc. v. MercExchange,) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.48 Tw
(L.L.C.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 126 S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.48 Tw
(Ct. 1837 \(2006\), which was decided after the district) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.71 Tw
(court's order denying relief in this case. Accordingly, we vacate por-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.26 Tw
(tions of the district court's order denying injunctive relief and remand) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.3 Tw
(for the limited purpose of reconsidering other equitable relief, such as) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.9 Tw
(an order requiring Galloway to destroy the infringing plans or return) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(them to Phelps & Associates. ) Tj
160.0852 -25.3 Td
(I) Tj
-148.0852 -25.3 Td
.37 Tw
(R. Wayne Galloway, in anticipation of retirement, planned to build) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
.87 Tw
(his "dream home" on a lot that he owned on the North Carolina side) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.05 Tw
(of Lake Wylie, southwest of Charlotte, North Carolina. Displeased) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.4 Tw
(with the design work done by an architect whom he had hired, Gallo-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.9 Tw
(way went with his son-in-law to view the designs of homes on Lake) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.19 Tw
(Norman, an expensive residential area about 30 miles north of Lake) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.01 Tw
(Wylie, where his son-in-law was working as an iron-work subcontrac-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.87 Tw
(tor. There, Galloway saw a French-country style house that he liked.) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.93 Tw
(His son-in-law approached the builder of the house, Simonini Build-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.55 Tw
(ers, Inc., and asked the superintendent for a copy of the plans. The) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
3.31 Tw
(superintendent said that Galloway would have to speak with the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.58 Tw
(owner, Mrs. Gina Bridgeford, because "she purchased the plans, they) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.78 Tw
(were actually drawn for her." Galloway contacted Mrs. Bridgeford,) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.94 Tw
(who gave Galloway her consent for use of the plans "as long as you) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.03 Tw
(don't build in our area." As to her authority to give consent, Mrs.) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.2 Tw
(Bridgeford testified at trial, "I felt with all we had paid, we owned the) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
462.5 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(3) Tj
-256.0067 0 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HRISTOPHER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HELPS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( & A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOC) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(. v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLOWAY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
16 0 obj
4001
endobj
14 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 15 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 4 4
18 0 obj
<<
/Length 19 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
.94 Tw
0 Tc
(plans at that time." Galloway assured Mrs. Bridgeford that he would) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.11 Tw
(not build in the area, telling her that he planned to build on Lake) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.14 Tw
(Wylie about 30 miles away. With Mrs. Bridgeford's permission, the) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.6 Tw
(superintendent at Simonini Builders gave Galloway a copy of the) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
4.43 Tw
(plans for "The Bridgeford Residence." Each page of the plans) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.01 Tw
(included the copyright notice, in small print, of the designing architect) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(as follows: ) Tj
22 -25.2 Td
1.11 Tw
( 2000 Copyright Christopher Phelps & Assoc., L.L.C.) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.02 Tw
(These plans are protected under the federal copyright laws.) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.26 Tw
(The original purchaser of this plan is authorized to construct) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.21 Tw
(one and only one home using this plan. Modifications or) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(reuse of this plan is prohibited.) Tj
-22 -25.2 Td
2.12 Tw
(Galloway altered the plans only to cover the name and address of) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.71 Tw
("The Bridgeford Residence" with the name and address of "The Gal-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
3.38 Tw
(loway Residence," and then he copied them for constructing his) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(house. ) Tj
12 -25.2 Td
.75 Tw
(Phelps & Associates, which designed the Bridgeford Residence, is) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
1.61 Tw
(an architectural firm in Charlotte, North Carolina, that designs ups-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.28 Tw
(cale custom houses. It created the design for the Bridgeford Resi-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.17 Tw
(dence as a variation of its earlier design "The Bell and Brown) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.9 Tw
(Residence." Bell and Brown had commissioned and paid Phelps &) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.19 Tw
(Associates for the earlier design, but ultimately decided not to build) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1 Tw
(the house. Phelps & Associates modified the Bell and Brown design) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.22 Tw
(somewhat for the Bridgefords by moving a dormer window, changing) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.52 Tw
(the front entry and reconfiguring part of the floor plan, and removing) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.61 Tw
(the basement. The Bridgefords paid Phelps & Associates $20,000 for) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
3.08 Tw
(The Bridgeford Residence design, and the Bridgefords built their) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(house on Lake Norman in accordance with that design. ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
.31 Tw
(Acting as his own general contractor, Galloway began construction) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
.58 Tw
(of his house in September 2001, using the Phelps & Associates plans) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
3.36 Tw
(for the Bridgeford Residence. During the course of construction,) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.61 Tw
(some of the subcontractors checked back with Phelps & Associates) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.46 Tw
(for clarification, particularly with respect to the windows. Phelps &) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.33 Tw
(Associates did not then know that the construction was being pursued) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.61 Tw
(without permission. Galloway's framing contractor, who had been) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.53 Tw
(asked to do some work for Galloway's brother-in-law using pirated) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
144 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(4) Tj
62.4933 0 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HRISTOPHER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HELPS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( & A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOC) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(. v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLOWAY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
19 0 obj
3719
endobj
17 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 18 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 5 5
21 0 obj
<<
/Length 22 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
.61 Tw
0 Tc
(Phelps & Associates plans, surmised that Galloway did not have per-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.13 Tw
(mission to use the plans and approached Galloway to warn him that) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.58 Tw
(he could "get in trouble constructing a copyright plan." Galloway) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.8 Tw
("shrugged his shoulders and said something to the effect: `They've) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(got to find me, catch me first.'" ) Tj
12 -25.2 Td
.67 Tw
(Through rumors from subcontractors, Phelps & Associates learned) Tj
-12 -12.3 Td
3.58 Tw
(in early 2003 that Galloway was constructing a house using its) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.25 Tw
(designs. After confirming that fact, Phelps & Associates sent Gallo-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.76 Tw
(way a cease and desist letter in July 2003. Upon receipt of the letter,) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.21 Tw
(Galloway stopped construction on his house, which was then over) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.36 Tw
(half completed. Thereafter, in August 2003, Phelps & Associates reg-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.45 Tw
(istered its plans for The Bridgeford Residence with the Copyright) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.67 Tw
(Office and then commenced this action against Galloway for copy-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(right infringement. ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
.2 Tw
(In its suit, Phelps & Associates sought compensatory damages, dis-) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
1.28 Tw
(gorgement of Galloway's profits \(claimed as the difference between) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.01 Tw
(the value of Galloway's house and his provable expenses in construct-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.93 Tw
(ing it\), and injunctive relief. With respect to compensatory damages,) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.96 Tw
(Christopher Phelps, the principal of Phelps & Associates, testified at) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.16 Tw
(trial that if Galloway had come to him and asked Phelps & Associates) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.46 Tw
(to design "a house like the Bridgeford house," Phelps & Associates) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.8 Tw
(would have charged Galloway $20,000 the same fee that it had) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.15 Tw
(charged Mrs. Bridgeford. Christopher Phelps made clear, however,) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.18 Tw
(that he would not have sold Galloway the actual Bridgeford Resi-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.61 Tw
(dence design, but something different, as Phelps & Associates prided) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.31 Tw
(itself on designing "custom homes." With respect to Galloway's prof-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.25 Tw
(its, Phelps & Associates presented expert testimony that Galloway's) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.35 Tw
(house would be worth $1.1 million when completed. With this esti-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.9 Tw
(mated value, Galloway would have realized over $200,000 in profits) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(if he were to sell the completed house. ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
.44 Tw
(Galloway testified at trial that he would have made no profit in the) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
1.17 Tw
(house had he sold it he had spent more on the house than it was) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.31 Tw
(worth. He estimated that if he completed the house, he would show) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.09 Tw
(a loss of about $160,000. He introduced into evidence his receipts and) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.48 Tw
(ledger of expenditures for construction to date totaling approximately) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.68 Tw
($660,000, and he estimated that it would cost an additional $250,000) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.28 Tw
(to $300,000 to complete the house. He estimated that upon comple-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
462.5 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(5) Tj
-256.0067 0 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HRISTOPHER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HELPS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( & A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOC) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(. v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLOWAY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
22 0 obj
3931
endobj
20 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 21 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 6 6
24 0 obj
<<
/Length 25 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
1.7 Tw
0 Tc
(tion, the house itself would be worth $758,000. He also introduced) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.67 Tw
(into evidence the Mecklenburg County tax assessment of his house) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
3.55 Tw
(when half-completed, which evaluated the house in that state at) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
($408,100. ) Tj
12 -25.9 Td
.22 Tw
(At the end of the trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Phelps) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
1.85 Tw
(& Associates, finding that Galloway had infringed Phelps & Asso-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.05 Tw
(ciate's architectural design copyright; awarding Phelps & Associates) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.81 Tw
($20,000 in actual damages; and finding that Galloway had no profits) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
3.25 Tw
(to disgorge. Thereafter, Phelps & Associates requested injunctive) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.43 Tw
(relief from the court \(1\) ordering that the infringing copy of the plans) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.97 Tw
(be returned or destroyed; \(2\) enjoining completion of the house; and) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.17 Tw
(\(3\) permanently enjoining the lease or sale of the house. The court "in) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.22 Tw
(its discretion" denied all injunctive relief, finding that the $20,000) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
3.22 Tw
(jury award made Phelps & Associates "whole." Accordingly, the) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.19 Tw
(court entered judgment in favor of Phelps & Associates for $20,000) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(in damages. ) Tj
12 -25.9 Td
.15 Tw
(On appeal, Phelps & Associates contends that it is entitled to a new) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
.9 Tw
(trial on damages because the district court erroneously instructed the) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.63 Tw
(jury that "The Bridgeford Residence" design was a derivative work) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.36 Tw
(and made certain erroneous evidentiary rulings. It also argues that the) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.91 Tw
(district court's refusal to enter an injunction was error as a matter of) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.12 Tw
(law because it had proved a past infringement and a likelihood of) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(future infringement. ) Tj
12 -25.8 Td
1.3 Tw
(Phelps & Associates did not obtain an injunction pending appeal,) Tj
-12 -12.6 Td
1.92 Tw
(and, according to representations made at oral argument, Galloway) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.48 Tw
(has completed the construction of his house, where he now resides.) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.2 Tw
(Galloway has also satisfied the $20,000 money judgment. ) Tj
158.1705 -25.8 Td
(II) Tj
-146.1705 -25.8 Td
.36 Tw
(To obtain a new jury trial on damages, Phelps & Associates argues) Tj
-12 -12.6 Td
.81 Tw
(that the district court \(1\) erred in instructing the jury on the scope of) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
3.32 Tw
(its copyright, telling them erroneously that Phelps & Associates') Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.35 Tw
(design was a derivative work, not an original work in its entirety; and) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.71 Tw
(\(2\) abused its discretion by making several evidentiary rulings. We) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.2 Tw
(address these contentions in turn. ) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
144 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(6) Tj
62.4933 0 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HRISTOPHER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HELPS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( & A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOC) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(. v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLOWAY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
25 0 obj
3531
endobj
23 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 24 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 7 7
27 0 obj
<<
/Length 28 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
157.8485 -8 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(A) Tj
-145.8485 -25.8 Td
.08 Tw
(Phelps & Associates contends first and principally that the jury was) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
1.45 Tw
(improperly instructed that its copyright in the Bridgeford Residence) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.03 Tw
(design was a derivative work of the earlier design of the Bell and) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.41 Tw
(Brown Residence and that the scope of Phelps & Associates' copy-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
3.87 Tw
(right consisted only of the minimal difference between the two) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(designs. The jury was instructed:) Tj
22 -25.8 Td
1.61 Tw
([Phelps & Associates'] copyright in the architectural work) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.04 Tw
(known as the Bridgeford Residence is a derivative work of) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.84 Tw
(the architectural work known as the Bell/Brown Residence.) Tj
0 -25.8 Td
.6 Tw
(A derivative work is a work that is based upon one or more) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2 Tw
(preexisting works, including a revision, transformation, or) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(adaptation of a preexisting work. ) Tj
0 -25.8 Td
1.33 Tw
([Phelps & Associates'] recovery is limited by the scope of) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.67 Tw
(copyright protection afforded a derivative work. You are) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.73 Tw
(instructed that the copyright protection in a derivative work) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
2.17 Tw
(covers only the additions, changes, or other new material) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.2 Tw
(appearing for the first time in the work. ) Tj
0 -25.8 Td
1.1 Tw
(It does not extend to any preexisting material and does not) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.88 Tw
(imply a copyright in that material. The copyright in a com-) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.33 Tw
(pilation or derivative work extends only to the material con-) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.43 Tw
(tributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.44 Tw
(the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.2 Tw
(imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. ) Tj
0 -25.8 Td
.69 Tw
(The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
2.86 Tw
(affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or sub-) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.37 Tw
(stance of any copyright protection in the preexisting mate-) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.2 Tw
(rial.) Tj
-22 -25.7 Td
.53 Tw
(Phelps & Associates contends that this instruction essentially told the) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.54 Tw
(jury that the copyright consisted of the relocation of a dormer win-) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.13 Tw
(dow, a few floor plan changes, and the lack of a basement, and that) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.2 Tw
(the jury accordingly attributed no profits to the infringement. ) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
462.5 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(7) Tj
-256.0067 0 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HRISTOPHER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HELPS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( & A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOC) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(. v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLOWAY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
28 0 obj
3211
endobj
26 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 29 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 27 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 8 8
31 0 obj
<<
/Length 32 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8 Td
.98 Tw
0 Tc
(Galloway argues that the derivative work instruction was accurate) Tj
-12 -12.3 Td
2.56 Tw
( that Phelps & Associates' copyright only extended to the new) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.9 Tw
(material embodied in the Bridgeford Residence and that its regis-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.07 Tw
(tration of the Bridgeford Residence design did not effect a registration) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.88 Tw
(of the many elements common to the Bridgeford Residence design) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(and the Bell and Brown Residence design. ) Tj
12 -25.2 Td
.15 Tw
(We agree with Phelps & Associates that the instruction was errone-) Tj
-12 -12.3 Td
.94 Tw
(ous. The Bridgeford Residence was not a derivative work as defined) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2 Tw
(in the Copyright Act; Phelps & Associates held a copyright in the) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.28 Tw
(entire design. Galloway's position misunderstands a fundamental pre-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.99 Tw
(cept of copyright law, that a copyright is independent of its registra-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(tion. ) Tj
12 -25.2 Td
1.55 Tw
(Both parties properly recognize that the copyright in a derivative) Tj
-12 -12.3 Td
.55 Tw
(work extends only to the new elements contributed by the author and) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.44 Tw
(does not extend to the underlying work. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( 17 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.44 Tw
(103\(b\). That) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.1 Tw
(provision assures that the author of a derivative work does not acquire) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
3.45 Tw
(ownership over constituent material that is already in the public) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.1 Tw
(domain or is owned by someone else. But when the author of the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.59 Tw
(derivative work ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(also) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( has a copyright on the underlying work, there is) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.96 Tw
(no need to protect the public domain or the author of the underlying) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(work, as the entire work is that of the single author. ) Tj
12 -25.2 Td
1.05 Tw
(Galloway's emphasis on the scope of Phelps & Associates' ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(regis-) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
.96 Tw
(tration) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( of the Bridgeford Residence design places more emphasis on) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.78 Tw
(the registration than the Copyright Act provides. The copyright itself) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
8.52 Tw
(does not depend on registration. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( 17 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
8.52 Tw
(408\(a\)) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
3.15 Tw
(\("[R]egistration is not a condition of copyright protection"\). It is) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.73 Tw
(obtained without formalities simply when a work has been fixed in a) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.86 Tw
(tangible medium of expression. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(id.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.86 Tw
(102\(a\), 408\(a\). Once fixa-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.36 Tw
(tion of an original work has taken place, the author has a copyright) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.7 Tw
(in the work, and registration with the Copyright Office serves only) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.1 Tw
(supporting roles. For instance, it provides evidence of a copyright, ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(see) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.92 Tw
(id.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.92 Tw
(410, and it is required as a condition to bringing suit, ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(see ) Tj
(id.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(411. ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
.65 Tw
(In this case, the undisputed facts are that Phelps & Associates was) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
2.57 Tw
(the author of the Bell and Brown Residence design and therefore) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.23 Tw
(owned the copyright in that work, even though it never registered that) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
144 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(8) Tj
62.4933 0 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HRISTOPHER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HELPS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( & A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOC) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(. v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLOWAY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
32 0 obj
4325
endobj
30 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 29 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 31 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 9 9
34 0 obj
<<
/Length 35 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
.55 Tw
0 Tc
(copyright. Phelps & Associates was also the author of the Bridgeford) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.45 Tw
(Residence design, which was a modification of the Bell and Brown) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.28 Tw
(Residence design. Phelps & Associates did register the Bridgeford) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.48 Tw
(Residence design, but not as a derivative work. It simply registered) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(the entire design, as it was the author of the entire design.) Tj
12 -25.9 Td
2.18 Tw
(While Phelps & Associates only registered the Bridgeford Resi-) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
.64 Tw
(dence design, that registration satisfied the prerequisite for suit under) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.1 Tw
(17 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.1 Tw
(411 for the ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(entire design) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, even though some of it was cre-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.72 Tw
(ated earlier in the form of the Bell and Brown Residence design. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.59 Tw
(Xoom v. Imageline, Inc.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 323 F.3d 279, 283-84 \(4th Cir. 2003\) \(hold-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.66 Tw
(ing that a party has standing to sue on all components of a registered) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.61 Tw
(work if he owns a copyright on those components, even if the under-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.64 Tw
(lying components have not been registered\); 2 Melville B. Nimmer) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.41 Tw
(& David Nimmer, ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Nimmer on Copyright) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.41 Tw
(7.16[B][2][c], at 7-173) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.53 Tw
(\(perm. ed., rev. vol. 2006\) \(same\). Therefore, even if Phelps & Asso-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.14 Tw
(ciates had only registered the Bridgeford Residence design ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(as a deriv-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.3 Tw
(ative work) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, it could have sought damages and profits for infringement) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.57 Tw
(of all of the components, including those embodied in the Bell and) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.45 Tw
(Brown Residence design, because it held the copyright in all of the) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.14 Tw
(components. The scope of registration need not precisely trace the) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.99 Tw
(scope of the copyright for the holder to sue. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Educ. Testing Serv.) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.87 Tw
(v. Katzman) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 793 F.2d 533, 538-39 \(3d Cir. 1986\) \("[T]he statutory) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.58 Tw
(premise that the copyright in a compilation extends to the constituent) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.11 Tw
(material contributed by the author is express"\); ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Morris v. Business) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(Concepts, Inc.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 259 F.3d 65, 68 \(2d Cir. 2001\) \(same\). ) Tj
12 -25.9 Td
.58 Tw
(Accordingly, Phelps & Associates was entitled to sue for remedies) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
2.92 Tw
(based on infringement of the entire Bridgeford Residence design,) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.78 Tw
(even though that design included components of an earlier work cre-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.37 Tw
(ated by Phelps & Associates; it was the author and therefore owner) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.85 Tw
(of the copyright in all of the copyrightable design elements. The) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.2 Tw
(instruction given by the district court to the jury was therefore errone-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(ous. ) Tj
12 -25.9 Td
.06 Tw
(Nonetheless, we conclude that the error was harmless. Three differ-) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
1.74 Tw
(ent aspects of the trial the district court's other instructions, the) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.81 Tw
(evidence presented at trial, and the jury's verdict indicate that the) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
2.11 Tw
(jury followed the other instructions given by the district court and) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
462.5 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(9) Tj
-256.0067 0 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HRISTOPHER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HELPS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( & A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOC) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(. v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLOWAY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
35 0 obj
4298
endobj
33 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 29 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 34 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 10 10
37 0 obj
<<
/Length 38 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
.56 Tw
0 Tc
(understood that they were to award damages based on the entire Gal-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1 Tw
(loway house as an infringement of the Bridgeford Residence design.) Tj
12 -25.9 Td
1.23 Tw
(First, when instructing the jury about the relief it was to consider) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
.06 Tw
(if it found infringement, the court correctly stated that Phelps & Asso-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.84 Tw
(ciates would be entitled to both actual damages for infringement and) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.99 Tw
(to all profits of the infringer resulting from the copyright infringe-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.9 Tw
(ment. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( 17 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.9 Tw
(504. In instructing the jury about the actual) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(damages, the court said:) Tj
22 -25.9 Td
.52 Tw
(Actual damages for infringement are measured according to) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.02 Tw
(market value, which means what a willing buyer would have) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
3.17 Tw
(been reasonably required to pay a willing seller for the) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(copyright holder's work. ) Tj
0 -25.8 Td
3.17 Tw
(Stated differently, this amount is what [Phelps & Asso-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.17 Tw
(ciates] would have received from a willing buyer as a ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(rea-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
6.17 Tw
(sonable licensing fee) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( for the use of the Bridgeford) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(Residence architectural works.) Tj
-22 -25.8 Td
2.4 Tw
(\(Emphasis added\). On actual damages, Phelps & Associates intro-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.61 Tw
(duced evidence that it charged Mrs. Bridgeford $20,000 as its fee for) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.82 Tw
(the Bridgeford Residence design. Christopher Phelps testified further) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.25 Tw
(that if Galloway had come to him to create a similar design, Phelps) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.17 Tw
(& Associates would likewise have charged Galloway a $20,000 fee.) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.27 Tw
(There was no other evidence on Phelps & Associates' actual damages) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.03 Tw
(as they were defined by the court's instructions. In returning a verdict,) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.88 Tw
(the jury awarded Phelps & Associates $20,000, consistent with the) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.11 Tw
(evidence about the licensing fee for the ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(entire) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( Bridgeford Residence) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.4 Tw
(design. Had the jury paid attention to the court's instruction on deriv-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(ative works, it would have awarded a licensing fee only for the ele-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.82 Tw
(ments added by the Bridgeford Residence design to the Bell and) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.36 Tw
(Brown Residence design, i.e. a relocated dormer and a slightly recon-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.9 Tw
(figured floor plan. There was no evidence, however, of the market) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.05 Tw
(value of these design elements, if they had any substantial value at all.) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.15 Tw
(And if the jury speculated on this matter, having no evidence of the) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.08 Tw
(design value of the two elements, it would have given Phelps & Asso-) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
2.9 Tw
(ciates only a portion of the $20,000 fee that represented the full) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.2 Tw
(licensing fee charged by Phelps & Associates for the entire house. ) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
144 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(10) Tj
62.4933 0 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HRISTOPHER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HELPS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( & A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOC) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(. v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLOWAY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
38 0 obj
3879
endobj
36 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 29 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 37 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 11 11
40 0 obj
<<
/Length 41 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8 Td
1.36 Tw
0 Tc
(With respect to the profits for which Phelps & Associates sought) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(disgorgement, the district court instructed the jury:) Tj
22 -25.9 Td
.37 Tw
(In addition to its actual damages, the law allows a copyright) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.47 Tw
(holder to recover all profits of the infringer resulting from) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(copyright infringement. ) Tj
0 -25.8 Td
1.4 Tw
(An infringer's profits consist of the amount of the infring-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
3.3 Tw
(er's gross revenues from the infringing activity less the) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(expenses of producing the infringing work. ) Tj
-22 -25.8 Td
.67 Tw
(Relating this general instruction about profits to the circumstances of) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.99 Tw
(this case, the district court referred the jury to the costs of the entire) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.36 Tw
(house less the expenses incurred in constructing the entire house. The) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(court stated:) Tj
22 -25.8 Td
3.77 Tw
(Galloway bears the burden of proving the expenses he) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.35 Tw
(incurred ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(in constructing the house at issue) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(. If he fails to) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.13 Tw
(prove his direct expenses, you must find the amount of his) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(gross revenues as the amount of his profits. ) Tj
0 -25.8 Td
3 Tw
(For an item to be a deductible expense, Galloway must) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.4 Tw
(prove that he actually incurred such amounts ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(in the con-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.28 Tw
(struction of the house in question) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, and that such expense) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.08 Tw
(actually assisted ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(in the construction of the house in question) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(.) Tj
-22 -25.8 Td
2.6 Tw
(\(Emphasis added\). Again, no evidence was introduced to the jury) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.6 Tw
(from which to conclude what the profits were for the minor design) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.32 Tw
(changes between the two works the addition of the dormer and the) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.32 Tw
(changed configuration of the layout. All of the evidence focused on) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.96 Tw
(the market value of the entire house and the expenses that Galloway) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.68 Tw
(incurred in constructing it. In response to the court's instructions and) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.43 Tw
(the evidence, the jury found that Galloway realized $0 in profits. If) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.5 Tw
(the jury had believed that Galloway actually had profits from the two) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.62 Tw
(changed elements, it would have allocated ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(some amount) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( to those ele-) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.18 Tw
(ments. Whether that was $2,000 or a nickel, ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(some amount) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( of infringer) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.15 Tw
(profits would be associated with the relevant design changes. Because) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.42 Tw
($0 was given in profits, the jury apparently credited Galloway's posi-) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
2.68 Tw
(tion that there were no profits in the house. This conclusion was) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
457 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(11) Tj
-250.5067 0 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HRISTOPHER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HELPS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( & A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOC) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(. v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLOWAY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
41 0 obj
3705
endobj
39 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 29 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 40 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 12 12
43 0 obj
<<
/Length 44 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
2.05 Tw
0 Tc
(amply supported by the evidence presented, which included Gallo-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.54 Tw
(way's own valuation, the county tax assessment, and the loss taken) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(by the Bridgefords when they sold their identical house. ) Tj
12 -25.9 Td
2.13 Tw
(If the jury had given effect to the court's instruction relating to) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
2.08 Tw
(derivative works, it would have applied that instruction to both its) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.1 Tw
(award of actual damages and its finding with respect to infringer prof-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(its. Yet such an application is belied by the verdict itself. ) Tj
12 -25.8 Td
.83 Tw
(Not only does the jury's verdict of $0 in profits reveal that it con-) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
2.45 Tw
(sidered profits from the ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(entire) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( house design despite the derivative) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.61 Tw
(work instruction, finding that none were proved, the district court's) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
3.12 Tw
(other instructions overrode any prejudicial effect that might have) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.72 Tw
(resulted from the erroneous instruction. The court gave instructions) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.03 Tw
(telling the jury how to apportion damages between conduct that was) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.42 Tw
(infringing and conduct that was not. The instructions imposed the) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
5.07 Tw
(burden ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(on Galloway) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( to prove any profits attributable to non-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.67 Tw
(infringing conduct. On a failure of that proof, the jury was instructed) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(to award ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(all profits) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( realized from the house. As the court stated:) Tj
22 -25.8 Td
1.3 Tw
(Moreover, if non-infringing factors are so intertwined with) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.57 Tw
(infringing factors that it is impossible to apportion profits,) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.2 Tw
(then no apportionment is allowed.) Tj
0 -25.8 Td
.01 Tw
(All profits should be deemed attributable to the infringement) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.5 Tw
(unless Galloway proves by a preponderance of the evidence) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.2 Tw
(that they are not. ) Tj
0 -25.8 Td
1.76 Tw
(If you have any doubts as to the amount of the profits or) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.15 Tw
(whether they resulted solely due to other factors, you must) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.2 Tw
(resolve those doubts in favor of [Phelps & Associates]. ) Tj
-22 -25.8 Td
1.8 Tw
(Galloway did not present any evidence of apportionment at trial to) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.88 Tw
(give effect to this apportionment instruction or the derivative work) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.21 Tw
(instruction. Consequently, the jury was instructed to award damages) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.6 Tw
(as if ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(the entire house) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( was an infringement of Phelps & Associates') Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.92 Tw
(copyright. It could have awarded $0 in profits ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(only) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( if it concluded) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.54 Tw
(there were no profits at all. While the jury did award Phelps & Asso-) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.17 Tw
(ciates the full amount of actual damages that it claimed and proved,) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
144 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(12) Tj
62.4933 0 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HRISTOPHER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HELPS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( & A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOC) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(. v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLOWAY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
44 0 obj
3796
endobj
42 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 29 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 43 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 13 13
46 0 obj
<<
/Length 47 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
1.17 Tw
0 Tc
(the jury concluded that Galloway had realized no profits. If the jury) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.59 Tw
(had found any profits and if Galloway had carried his burden on) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.7 Tw
(apportionment, the jury still would have given some amount of the) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.39 Tw
(profits to Phelps & Associates in accordance with both the apportion-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.87 Tw
(ment instruction and the derivative work instruction. Its failure to do) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(so satisfies us that the jury did not believe there were any profits. ) Tj
12 -25.9 Td
.16 Tw
(In short, the erroneous derivative work instruction had no operative) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
1.25 Tw
(effect on the jury's award and therefore was harmless. Accordingly,) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.23 Tw
(we reject Phelps & Associates' request for a new jury trial on dam-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(ages based on the district court's erroneous instruction. ) Tj
158.1647 -25.9 Td
(B) Tj
-146.1647 -25.8 Td
.97 Tw
(Phelps & Associates also contends that it is entitled to a new trial) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
.07 Tw
(on damages because of erroneous evidentiary rulings made by the dis-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.47 Tw
(trict court during the course of trial. We have reviewed each of the) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.54 Tw
(court's rulings and conclude that the district court did not abuse its) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(discretion. ) Tj
12 -25.8 Td
.38 Tw
(First, Phelps & Associates challenges the district court's admission) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
.27 Tw
(of Galloway's receipts and ledger which he offered to prove expenses) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.48 Tw
(incurred in constructing his house, contending that these documents) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.21 Tw
(were inadmissible hearsay evidence. We conclude, however, that they) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.16 Tw
(could appropriately have been admitted under the business records) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.14 Tw
(exception, ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(see) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( Fed. R. Evid. 803\(6\), or the residual hearsay exception,) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(see) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( Fed. R. Evid. 807. ) Tj
12 -25.8 Td
(Phelps & Associates also challenges the admission of a Mecklen-) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
.23 Tw
(burg County tax assessment, offered to prove the value of Galloway's) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.48 Tw
(property. It argues that the assessment contained undisclosed expert) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.36 Tw
(testimony, i.e., a real estate appraisal, subject to the gatekeeper provi-) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.22 Tw
(sions of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Daubert v. Merrell Dow) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.05 Tw
(Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 509 U.S. 579 \(1993\). We conclude, however,) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.54 Tw
(that the assessment could appropriately have been admitted under the) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.64 Tw
(agency records exception to the hearsay rule, Fed. R. Evid. 803\(8\),) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.81 Tw
(which holds such documents sufficiently reliable because they repre-) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.56 Tw
(sent the outcome of a governmental process and were relied upon for) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.2 Tw
(non-judicial purposes.) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
457 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13) Tj
-250.5067 0 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HRISTOPHER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HELPS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( & A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOC) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(. v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLOWAY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
47 0 obj
3734
endobj
45 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 48 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 46 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 14 14
50 0 obj
<<
/Length 51 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8 Td
.22 Tw
0 Tc
(Next, Phelps & Associates challenges the district court's admission) Tj
-12 -12.3 Td
.64 Tw
(of Galloway's own testimony on the value of his property. Lay opin-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.39 Tw
(ion testimony, however, may appropriately be admitted if it is helpful) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.8 Tw
(to the jury; if it is based on the perception of the witness; and if it is) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.54 Tw
(not expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( Fed.) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.42 Tw
(R. Evid. 701. Courts indulge a common-law presumption that a prop-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(erty owner is competent to testify on the value of his own property.) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.3 Td
.82 Tw
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(North Carolina State Highway Comm'n v. Helderman) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 207) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.26 Tw
(S.E.2d 720, 725 \(N.C. 1974\); Fed. R. Evid. 701 advisory committee's) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.19 Tw
(note \("[M]ost courts have permitted the owner or officer of a business) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.56 Tw
(to testify to the value or projected profits of the business, without the) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.4 Tw
(necessity of qualifying the witness as an [expert] . . . . The amend-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(ment does not purport to change this analysis"\). ) Tj
12 -25.2 Td
3.25 Tw
(Finally, Phelps & Associates complains that its expert witness) Tj
-12 -12.3 Td
1.42 Tw
(should have been allowed to testify to rebut the tax assessment and) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.57 Tw
(Galloway's testimony on the value of his property. The expert pro-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.75 Tw
(posed to testify on the reliability of the Mecklenburg County tax) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.02 Tw
(appraisal. The court listened to Phelps & Associates proffer of the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.73 Tw
(expert's testimony out of the presence of the jury and concluded that) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.33 Tw
(it was "unhelpful" and "potentially misleading." The district court has) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.28 Tw
(broad discretion to regulate the admissibility of such testimony, and) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.56 Tw
(our review of the record indicates that the court did not abuse its dis-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.77 Tw
(cretion. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hosp.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 791 F.2d 288,) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(291 \(4th Cir. 1986\). ) Tj
12 -25.2 Td
1.18 Tw
(In sum, we reject Phelps & Associates' arguments for a new trial) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(on damages and affirm the jury's verdict. ) Tj
156.2557 -25.2 Td
(III) Tj
-144.2557 -25.2 Td
2.74 Tw
(After the jury returned its verdict, Phelps & Associates filed a) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
.07 Tw
(motion under 17 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.07 Tw
(502, 503\(b\) for injunctive relief \(1\) to pro-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.55 Tw
(hibit the completion of the house; \(2\) to enjoin permanently the lease) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.37 Tw
(or sale of the house; and \(3\) to require the destruction or return of the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.51 Tw
(infringing plans. The district court denied the motion and all of the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(relief requested, stating:) Tj
22 -25.2 Td
3.35 Tw
(After trial in this matter, the jury awarded the Plaintiff) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.41 Tw
($20,000 in actual damages. The court finds that the Plaintiff) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
144 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(14) Tj
62.4933 0 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HRISTOPHER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HELPS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( & A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOC) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(. v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLOWAY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
51 0 obj
3953
endobj
49 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 48 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 50 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 15 15
53 0 obj
<<
/Length 54 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
22 -8 Td
.27 Tw
0 Tc
(has been made whole, and in its discretion, declines to order) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.88 Tw
(Defendant to destroy all copies of the plans at issue. More-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.65 Tw
(over, the court declines to enjoin further construction of the) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.97 Tw
(house, alteration of the house, or the future lease or sale of) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.33 Tw
(the house. Evidence at trial revealed that the house is sub-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
3.81 Tw
(stantially constructed and that only interior finish work) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.01 Tw
(remains to be done. Thus, there is no likelihood that comple-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.8 Tw
(tion of the house will result in further infringement. Taking) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.21 Tw
(into account equitable considerations, the court refuses to) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(grant the relief requested by the Plaintiff. ) Tj
-10 -25.9 Td
.65 Tw
(Phelps & Associates contends that in denying injunctive relief, the) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
.89 Tw
(district court erred as a matter of law. It argues that the court denied) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.45 Tw
(injunctive relief simply because Phelps & Associates received dam-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.59 Tw
(ages and thereby had been made "whole." It maintains that "the mere) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.56 Tw
(fact that a copyright owner may recover damages does ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(not) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( negate his) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.94 Tw
(right to injunctive relief." ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Lyons P'ship, LP v. Morris Costumes,) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.41 Tw
(Inc.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 243 F.3d 789, 801 \(4th Cir. 2001\) \(remanding for the entry of) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.07 Tw
(a permanent injunction ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(and) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( a determination of the amount of damages) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.13 Tw
(award\). Phelps & Associates argues affirmatively that when copyright) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.95 Tw
(infringement has been proved and there is a threat of continuing) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.63 Tw
(infringement, the copyright holder is ") Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(entitled) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( to an injunction." ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Walt) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.33 Tw
(Disney Co. v. Powell) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 897 F.2d 565, 567 \(D.C. Cir. 1990\); ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(see also) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.38 Tw
(Harolds Stores, Inc. v. Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 82 F.3d 1533, 1555) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.38 Tw
(\(10th Cir. 1996\); ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Olan Mills, Inc. v. Linn Photo Co.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 23 F.3d 1345,) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.02 Tw
(1349 \(8th Cir. 1994\); ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Nat'l Football League v. McBee & Bruno's,) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.32 Tw
(Inc.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 792 F.2d 726, 732 \(8th Cir. 1986\). Because Phelps & Associates) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.39 Tw
(says that it made that showing, it claims that it was entitled to injunc-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(tive relief. ) Tj
12 -25.9 Td
.28 Tw
(Insofar as Phelps & Associates suggests that it is ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(entitled) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( to injunc-) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
1.45 Tw
(tive relief, we reject the argument. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(eBay Inc. v. MercExchange,) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.12 Tw
(L.L.C.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 126 S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.12 Tw
(Ct. 1837, 1839 \(2006\). In ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(eBay) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, the Supreme Court) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.8 Tw
(rejected any notion that "an injunction automatically follows a deter-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.67 Tw
(mination that a copyright has been infringed." 126 S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.67 Tw
(Ct. at 1840) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.31 Tw
(\(reversing the Federal Circuit, which had articulated "a `general rule,') Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.23 Tw
(unique to patent disputes, `that a permanent injunction will issue once) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.5 Tw
(infringement and validity have been adjudged'"\). The Supreme Court) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.2 Tw
(reaffirmed the traditional showing that a plaintiff must make to obtain) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
457 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(15) Tj
-250.5067 0 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HRISTOPHER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HELPS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( & A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOC) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(. v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLOWAY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
54 0 obj
4622
endobj
52 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 48 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 53 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 16 16
56 0 obj
<<
/Length 57 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
2.56 Tw
0 Tc
(a permanent injunction in any type of case, including a patent or) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(copyright case:) Tj
22 -25.8 Td
2.88 Tw
(A plaintiff must demonstrate: \(1\) that it has suffered an) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.16 Tw
(irreparable injury; \(2\) that remedies available at law, such as) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.21 Tw
(monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
5.58 Tw
(injury; \(3\) that, considering the balance of hardships) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.65 Tw
(between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.65 Tw
(warranted; and \(4\) that the public interest would not be dis-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(served by a permanent injunction.) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-22 -25.8 Td
.64 Tw
(Id.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( at 1839. Moreover, the Court reiterated that even upon this show-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.33 Tw
(ing, whether to grant the injunction still remains in the "equitable dis-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(cretion" of the court. ) Tj
12 -25.8 Td
.26 Tw
(Rejecting Phelps & Associates' claim to an automatic injunction or) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
.57 Tw
(an "entitlement" to one, we now apply traditional equity principles to) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.48 Tw
(each of Phelps & Associates' requests for injunctive relief to deter-) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.2 Tw
(mine whether the district court abused its discretion. ) Tj
157.8485 -25.8 Td
(A) Tj
-145.8485 -25.8 Td
.44 Tw
(Phelps & Associates' first request, that Galloway be enjoined from) Tj
-12 -12.6 Td
.64 Tw
(completing the house, appears to be moot. At oral argument, the par-) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.2 Tw
(ties represented that the house had been completed. ) Tj
158.1647 -25.8 Td
(B) Tj
-146.1647 -25.7 Td
.87 Tw
(Phelps & Associates' second request for equitable relief, that Gal-) Tj
-12 -12.6 Td
2.21 Tw
(loway be enjoined from leasing or selling the completed house, is) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.42 Tw
(argued with the following syllogism: ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(First) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, the completed house is an) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
2.06 Tw
(infringing copy of Phelps & Associates' copyrighted work. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( 17) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.5 Tw
(U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.5 Tw
(101. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Second) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, as the copyright holder, Phelps & Associates) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.44 Tw
(has the exclusive right to lease or sell its copyrighted work. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(id.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.6 Td
.11 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.11 Tw
(106\(3\). ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Therefore) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, Galloway may never lease or sell the house with-) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
3.92 Tw
(out infringing Phelps & Associates' copyright. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(id.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.92 Tw
(501\(a\).) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.72 Tw
(Because it is likely that Galloway will lease or sell his house, it is) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.38 Tw
(likely that he will infringe Phelps & Associates' copyright, and this) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.41 Tw
(likely infringement should be foreclosed by a permanent injunction.) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
144 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(16) Tj
62.4933 0 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HRISTOPHER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HELPS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( & A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOC) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(. v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLOWAY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
57 0 obj
3744
endobj
55 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 48 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 56 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 17 17
59 0 obj
<<
/Length 60 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8 Td
2 Tw
0 Tc
(We agree with Phelps & Associates' argument that an award of) Tj
-12 -12.3 Td
1.67 Tw
(damages that fully compensates a plaintiff for all damages suffered) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.72 Tw
(does not categorically preclude injunctive relief. The damages in this) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.08 Tw
(case were awarded for past conduct and the injunctive relief requested) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.51 Tw
(is forward-looking, addressing claimed future injury. Although future) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.65 Tw
(injury of an economic nature can often be reflected in an award of) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.59 Tw
(damages, the requested injunction to prohibit a future lease or sale of) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.45 Tw
(Galloway's house could not have been addressed by an economic) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.74 Tw
(award. When and in what market condition Galloway would be leas-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.54 Tw
(ing or selling his house cannot be surmised with the necessary cer-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.96 Tw
(tainty for a damages award. Accordingly, such injury, if redressable,) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
3.57 Tw
(would either be "irreparable" or any damages, "inadequate." ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.34 Tw
(eBay) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 126 S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.34 Tw
(Ct. at 1839. Therefore, injunctive relief is not foreclosed) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(by the award of damages in this case. ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
.16 Tw
(The bigger question is whether a future lease or sale of a house, the) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
4.65 Tw
(construction of which has already been subject to a copyright) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.42 Tw
(infringement action, will cause an injury for which the Copyright Act) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.6 Tw
(provides a remedy in addition to that already provided for the con-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.22 Tw
(struction of the house. Phelps & Associates claims that such a lease) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.26 Tw
(or sale of the house would constitute an additional copyright infringe-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.76 Tw
(ment in that it would violate its exclusive right to lease and sell con-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.61 Tw
(ferred by 17 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.61 Tw
(106\(3\) \(providing that copyright owner has) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.6 Tw
(exclusive rights to sell, rent, lease, or lend copies\). It contends that) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.15 Tw
(while it would ordinarily be entitled to profits resulting from any such) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.32 Tw
(lease or sale, the inability to determine profits at the present time) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.6 Tw
(leaves it no recourse but to seek equitable relief. In sum, Phelps &) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.02 Tw
(Associates argues that it is entitled to the perpetual stream of profits) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.9 Tw
(from the infringing copy presumably for the 95-year life of the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.14 Tw
(copyright, ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(see) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( 17 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.14 Tw
(302\(c\) and that an injunction is the only) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(practical way to ensure that it may capture that stream of profits. ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
1.14 Tw
(While the lease or sale of an infringing copy is generally a viola-) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
.6 Tw
(tion of the exclusive rights given to a copyright holder, the "first sale) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.3 Tw
(doctrine" of 17 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.3 Tw
(109\(a\) creates an exception as it applies to) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.01 Tw
(the particular copy in this case, Galloway's house. Section 109\(a\) pro-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.07 Tw
(vides that "notwithstanding [the copyright holder's exclusive rights],) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.05 Tw
(the owner of a particular copy . . . lawfully made under this title, or) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.77 Tw
(any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the author-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.56 Tw
(ity of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the posses-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
457 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(17) Tj
-250.5067 0 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HRISTOPHER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HELPS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( & A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOC) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(. v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLOWAY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
60 0 obj
4397
endobj
58 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 48 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 59 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 18 18
62 0 obj
<<
/Length 63 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
2.04 Tw
0 Tc
(sion of that copy." The ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(construction) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( of the Galloway house, as an) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.48 Tw
(infringement of Phelps & Associates' copyright, has been subjected) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.32 Tw
(to the remedies of the Copyright Act in this action. Accordingly, Gal-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.5 Tw
(loway may, after satisfying the judgment for his unlawful construc-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.22 Tw
(tion of the house, "sell or otherwise dispose" of it without further) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(liability to Phelps & Associates. ) Tj
12 -25.2 Td
1.06 Tw
(Contending that the first sale doctrine does not apply in this case,) Tj
-12 -12.3 Td
3.16 Tw
(Phelps & Associates focuses our attention on the requirement of) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.82 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.82 Tw
(109\(a\) that the first sale be "lawfully made" or be authorized by it.) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
3.44 Tw
(It argues that since Galloway's house was not a copy "lawfully) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.77 Tw
(made," any future lease or sale of the house would be an infringe-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.28 Tw
(ment. In other words, Phelps & Associates contends that the tainted) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.11 Tw
(original acquisition and use of the Bridgeford Residence design per-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.25 Tw
(manently disables the alienability of Galloway's house until Phelps &) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.66 Tw
(Associates, as copyright holder of the house's design, releases its) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(claim. ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
1.9 Tw
(While Phelps & Associates' argument would be well taken with) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
.38 Tw
(respect to any lease or sale that was threatened or occurred ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(before) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.03 Tw
(judgment in this case, ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(see ) Tj
(Palmetto Builders & Designers, Inc. v. Uni-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.17 Tw
(real, Inc.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 342 F. Supp. 2d 468, 473 \(D.S.C. 2004\), its bringing of this) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.65 Tw
(action and obtaining relief from the district court for the construction) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.12 Tw
(of the house provides authorization that satisfies ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.12 Tw
(109\(a\). When the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.88 Tw
(district court entered judgment that awarded Phelps & Associates) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.67 Tw
(damages and infringer's profits, if any, and that declined to order the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.23 Tw
(destruction or other disposition of the house, the house became a law-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.35 Tw
(fully made copy. This is because the illegal character of the copy was) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.59 Tw
(fully redressed by the remedies requested and granted with respect to) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(the making of the copy. ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
(Just as a converter of property obtains good title to the converted) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
3.98 Tw
(property after satisfying a judgment for conversion, so does an) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.15 Tw
(infringer obtain good title to the physical copy after satisfaction of the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.01 Tw
(judgment under the Copyright Act. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( Restatement \(Second\) of Torts) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.01 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.01 Tw
(222A, cmt. c \("When the defendant satisfies the judgment in the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.16 Tw
(action for conversion, title to the chattel passes to him, so that he is) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.28 Tw
(in effect required to buy it at a forced judicial sale"\). The Second Cir-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.18 Tw
(cuit reached this very conclusion in the context of a patent or copy-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(right:) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
144 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(18) Tj
62.4933 0 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HRISTOPHER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HELPS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( & A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOC) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(. v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLOWAY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
63 0 obj
4205
endobj
61 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 48 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 62 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 19 19
65 0 obj
<<
/Length 66 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
22 -8 Td
2.67 Tw
0 Tc
([T]he "first sale" which terminates the exclusive right to) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.02 Tw
(vend patented or copyrighted objects need not be a truly vol-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.51 Tw
(untary one, but can consist of some reasonable and recog-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.43 Tw
(nized form of compulsory transfer, such as a judicial sale or) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
4.33 Tw
(court-compelled assignment. In such cases the ultimate) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.61 Tw
(question embodied in the "first sale" doctrine "whether) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.7 Tw
(or not there has been such a disposition of the article that it) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.34 Tw
(may fairly be said that the patentee \(or copyright proprietor\)) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.7 Tw
(has received his reward for the use of the article" is) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.19 Tw
(answered in the affirmative . . . . If rationalization is needed,) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.11 Tw
(this can be in terms of involuntary "sale," of a presumed) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.7 Tw
("consent" by the proprietor or patentee to the rights and) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.9 Tw
(remedies that are normally applicable to material objects in) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.65 Tw
(the course of trade. . . . [W]e [) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.65 Tw
(] reject plaintiff's extreme) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.61 Tw
(position that copyrighted goods are immune from the nor-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.67 Tw
(mal remedies . . . until the proprietor has had one truly vol-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(untary "sale.") Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
-22 -25.9 Td
.83 Tw
(Platt & Munk Co. v. Republic Graphics, Inc.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 315 F.2d 847, 854 \(2d) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.26 Tw
(Cir. 1963\) \(citations omitted\); ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(see also ) Tj
(Bourne v. Walt Disney Co.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 68) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.76 Tw
(F.3d 621, 632-33 \(2d Cir. 1995\) \(holding that certain licenses can be) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.32 Tw
(a "first sale" authorizing owner of copy to sell it\); ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(McCoy v. Mitsu-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
0 Tw
(boshi Cutlery, Inc.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 67 F.3d 917, 921-23 \(Fed. Cir. 1995\) \(holding that) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.03 Tw
(patent holder's nonpayment of debts is authorization to sell patented) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(copies\). ) Tj
12 -25.9 Td
.59 Tw
(The legislative history of the Copyright Act of 1976 similarly sug-) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
1.54 Tw
(gests that the copyright owner need not ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(voluntarily) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( authorize a sale) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.43 Tw
(for the first sale doctrine to apply. "To come within the scope of Sec-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.84 Tw
(tion 109\(a\), a copy . . . must have been `lawfully made under this) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.87 Tw
(title,' ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(though not necessarily with the copyright owner's authoriza-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.24 Tw
(tion) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(. For example, any resale of an illegally `pirated' phonorecord) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
3.7 Tw
(would be an infringement, but the disposition of a phonorecord) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.32 Tw
(legally made under the compulsory licensing provisions of section) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.6 Tw
(115 would not." H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, at 79 \(1976\), ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(reprinted in) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.7 Td
2.28 Tw
(1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5659, 5693 \(emphasis added\). Thus, under the) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.5 Tw
(first sale doctrine, an infringer is entitled to sell, or otherwise dispose) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.8 Tw
(of any copy that the court does not order destroyed or otherwise dis-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.74 Tw
(posed of, without further obligation, once he satisfies the judgment) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
457 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(19) Tj
-250.5067 0 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HRISTOPHER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HELPS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( & A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOC) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(. v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLOWAY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
66 0 obj
4195
endobj
64 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 67 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 65 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 20 20
69 0 obj
<<
/Length 70 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
3.76 Tw
0 Tc
(that remedied the infringement, even if the copy was originally) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(pirated. ) Tj
12 -25.2 Td
2.3 Tw
(By bringing an infringement action against Galloway, Phelps &) Tj
-12 -12.3 Td
1.35 Tw
(Associates essentially sold him its interest in the house in exchange) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.42 Tw
(for the appropriate remedies under the Copyright Act. Once those) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.02 Tw
(remedies have been sought and a judgment has been rendered, the) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.52 Tw
(copyright holder loses his right to sell that particular manifestation of) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(his copyright. ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
.53 Tw
(Phelps & Associates argues that this understanding of the first sale) Tj
-12 -12.3 Td
.61 Tw
(doctrine amounts to a judicially-created compulsory license, which is) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.18 Tw
(disfavored. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 464) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.74 Tw
(U.S. 417, 446 n.28 \(1984\). The reliance on ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Sony) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, however, is mis-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.66 Tw
(placed. The remedies under the Copyright Act do not resemble a) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.59 Tw
(license because the Copyright Act remedies are far broader than sim-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.36 Tw
(ply requiring a defendant to make license payments. Under the Copy-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.4 Tw
(right Act, a copyright holder is entitled to both actual damages the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.12 Tw
(market price of the license ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(and) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( disgorgement of the infringer's) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.44 Tw
(profits, which might be immensely greater than the price of a license.) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.4 Td
1.49 Tw
(See) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( 17 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.49 Tw
(504. Moreover, the infringer takes the risk that the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.72 Tw
(district court will order, in its discretion, the destruction or other dis-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.83 Tw
(position of the infringing article. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(id.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.83 Tw
(503\(b\). In the garden-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.29 Tw
(variety piracy case, such orders are routinely issued. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Loud) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.84 Tw
(Records, LLC v. Lambright) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, Civ. No. 1:05-0171, 2006 U.S. Dist.) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
3.48 Tw
(LEXIS 38016 \(S.D. W. Va., March 30, 2006\); ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Graduate Mgmt.) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.03 Tw
(Admission Council v. Raju) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 267 F. Supp. 2d 505 \(E.D. Va. 2003\);) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.4 Td
.14 Tw
(Microsoft Corp. v. Grey Computer) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 910 F. Supp. 1077 \(D. Md. 1995\).) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.04 Tw
(Given the risks attendant to infringement, the interest in having poten-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.68 Tw
(tial infringers negotiate with copyright holders is adequately secured.) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.4 Td
1.82 Tw
(See ) Tj
(Walker v. Forbes, Inc.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 28 F.3d 409, 412 \(4th Cir. 1994\) \("By) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.92 Tw
(stripping the infringer not only of the licensing fee but also of the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.33 Tw
(profit generated as a result of the use of the infringed item, the law) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.81 Tw
(makes clear that there is no gain to be made from taking someone) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(else's intellectual property without their consent"\). ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
1.04 Tw
(The alternative to giving Galloway rights under the first sale doc-) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
.02 Tw
(trine of ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.02 Tw
(109\(a\) would inappropriately expand the scope of Copyright) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.63 Tw
(Act remedies in circumstances such as those before us. A house or) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.04 Tw
(building, as an expression of the architect's copyrighted plans, usually) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
144 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(20) Tj
62.4933 0 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HRISTOPHER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HELPS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( & A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOC) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(. v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLOWAY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
70 0 obj
4580
endobj
68 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 67 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 69 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 21 21
72 0 obj
<<
/Length 73 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
2.21 Tw
0 Tc
(has a predominantly functional character. This functional character) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
4.34 Tw
(was the reason American copyright law, pre-Berne Convention,) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.68 Tw
(denied protection to constructed architectural works altogether. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( 1) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.78 Tw
(Nimmer & Nimmer, ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(supra) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.78 Tw
(2.08[D][2][b], at 2-126 \("an architec-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.6 Tw
(tural structure ordinarily constitutes a `useful article' . . . . For that) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.08 Tw
(reason, such structures remained unprotected by United States copy-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.33 Tw
(right law from passage of the current [Copyright] Act until enactment) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
3.92 Tw
(of an amendment, the Architectural Works Copyright Protection) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.11 Tw
(Act"\). This is the same reason that Congress manifested an expecta-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.82 Tw
(tion that injunctions will not be routinely issued against substantially) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.93 Tw
(completed houses whose designs violated architectural copyrights.) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
5.93 Tw
(H.R. Rep. No. 101-735, at 13-14 \(1990\), ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(reprinted in) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( 1990) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.81 Tw
(U.S.C.C.A.N. 6935, 6944 \(explaining that buildings "are the only) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.05 Tw
(form of copyrightable subject matter that is habitable"\). Those consid-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.59 Tw
(erations are at their strongest when the architectural structure is com-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(pleted and inhabited, as here. ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
2.83 Tw
(Moreover, such an injunction would be overbroad, as it would) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
.81 Tw
(encumber a great deal of property unrelated to the infringement. The) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.76 Tw
(materials and labor that went into the Galloway house, in addition to) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.56 Tw
(the swimming pool, the fence, and other non-infringing features, as) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.15 Tw
(well as the land underneath the house, would be restrained by the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.97 Tw
(requested injunction. As such, the injunction would take on a funda-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1 Tw
(mentally punitive character, which has not been countenanced in the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.88 Tw
(Copyright Act's remedies. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Bucklew v. Hawkins, Ash, Baptie &) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.35 Tw
(Co.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 329 F.3d 923, 931 \(7th Cir. 2003\) \(noting that the Copyright Act) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
3.24 Tw
(does not authorize punitive damages\); ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(cf.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( 17 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.24 Tw
(504, 505) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.11 Tw
(\(specifying the remedies available under the Copyright Act\). In a sim-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.72 Tw
(ilar vein, the requested injunction would undermine an ancient reluc-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.6 Tw
(tance by the courts to restrain the alienability of real property. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See,) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.84 Tw
(e.g.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Williams v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 651 F.2d 910, 919) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.7 Tw
(n.18 \(4th Cir. 1981\); ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Jiggets v. Davis) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 28 Va. 368 \(1829\); ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(Howard v.) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(Earl of Shrewsbury) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, \(1867\) 2 Ch. App. 760. ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
2.52 Tw
(While Galloway has title to the house that is free and clear of) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
2.27 Tw
(restrictions arising from his infringement, he has not obtained any) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.72 Tw
(rights in the house's design. His ownership is limited to the house as) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.13 Tw
(a single manifestation of the design. Like the owner of a book, he will) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.17 Tw
(have the power to lease or sell the house, but not to copy its design) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.59 Tw
(in another house or engage in any other activity that remains the) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
457 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(21) Tj
-250.5067 0 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HRISTOPHER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HELPS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( & A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOC) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(. v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLOWAY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
73 0 obj
4654
endobj
71 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 67 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 72 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 22 22
75 0 obj
<<
/Length 76 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8 Td
.11 Tw
0 Tc
(exclusive right of the copyright holder. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Red Baron-Franklin Park,) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.64 Tw
(Inc. v. Taito Corp.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 883 F.2d 275, 280 \(4th Cir. 1989\) \(first sale doc-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.03 Tw
(trine diminished copyright holder's distribution right, but not other) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(exclusive rights such as the right of publication\). In short, Phelps &) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.65 Tw
(Associates retains its copyright, albeit not the one-house manifesta-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.4 Tw
(tion of it. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( 2 Nimmer & Nimmer, ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(supra) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.4 Tw
(8.12[B][1][d] \("the first) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.2 Tw
(sale inquiry examines ownership of the tangible property in which the) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.43 Tw
(copyrighted work has been embodied, not ownership of the copyright) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(itself"\). ) Tj
12 -25.1 Td
.08 Tw
(For all of these reasons, we affirm the district court's order denying) Tj
-12 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(an injunction against the future lease or sale of Galloway's house. ) Tj
158.1647 -25.1 Td
(C) Tj
-146.1647 -25.1 Td
1.15 Tw
(Finally, Phelps & Associates contends that the district court erred) Tj
-12 -12.3 Td
.86 Tw
(as a matter of law in refusing to grant injunctive relief to require the) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.97 Tw
(return or destruction of the infringing plans. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( 17 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.97 Tw
(503\(b\).) Tj
12 -25.1 Td
.2 Tw
(Again, any relief granted in equity is at the discretion of the district) Tj
-12 -12.3 Td
1.16 Tw
(court, and a petitioner cannot claim that it was ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(entitled) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
( to injunctive) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.74 Tw
(relief. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(eBay) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 126 S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.74 Tw
(Ct. at 1839. Nonetheless, the district court,) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.24 Tw
(without the benefit of ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(eBay) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, may have denied equitable relief categor-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.44 Tw
(ically, rather than basing its analysis on the traditional principles of) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(equity. ) Tj
12 -25.1 Td
.63 Tw
(In denying Phelps & Associates' motion for an injunction, the dis-) Tj
-12 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(trict court stated:) Tj
22 -25.1 Td
.81 Tw
(The court finds that the Plaintiff has been made whole, and) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.43 Tw
(in its discretion, declines to order Defendant to destroy all) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(copies of the plans at issue. ) Tj
-22 -25.1 Td
.97 Tw
(Being made whole in the circumstances of this case, however, could) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.14 Tw
(only have referred to the jury award of damages for the cost of a) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.58 Tw
(license and its finding that Galloway realized no profits for disgorge-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.44 Tw
(ment. It could not have related to other questions, such as the exis-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(tence of infringing plans or future acts of infringement. ) Tj
12 -25.2 Td
(To explain its ruling, the court stated only,) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
144 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(22) Tj
62.4933 0 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HRISTOPHER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HELPS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( & A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOC) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(. v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLOWAY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
76 0 obj
3804
endobj
74 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 67 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 75 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 23 23
78 0 obj
<<
/Length 79 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 144 631.5 Tm
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
22 -8 Td
.12 Tw
0 Tc
(Evidence at trial revealed that the house is substantially con-) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
2.61 Tw
(structed and that only interior finish work remains to be) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
2.38 Tw
(done. Thus, there is no likelihood that completion of the) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(house will result in further infringement. ) Tj
-22 -25.5 Td
1.14 Tw
(It does not follow, however, that because the plans were not needed) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
3.49 Tw
(to complete the house, they should not therefore be returned or) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
2.12 Tw
(destroyed, as authorized by 17 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.12 Tw
(503\(b\). The risk of future) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
3.58 Tw
(infringement includes the possible use of plans to build another) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.73 Tw
(house, publication of the plans, or other violations of the exclusive) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
2.04 Tw
(rights conferred by 17 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.04 Tw
(106. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Serv. & Training, Inc. v.) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.66 Tw
(Data Gen. Corp.) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 963 F.2d 680, 690 \(4th Cir. 1992\) \(affirming the) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.4 Tw
(entry of a preliminary injunction against further unauthorized use and) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(copying of copyrighted software\). ) Tj
12 -25.5 Td
1.55 Tw
(When Phelps & Associates requested the return or destruction of) Tj
-12 -12.5 Td
1.57 Tw
(the infringing plans, the district court was obligated to consider the) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.3 Tw
(traditional factors for equitable relief. Yet it appears that the court did) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.25 Tw
(not do so. At most, it stated without explanation that it declined "in) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.62 Tw
(its discretion . . . to order defendant to destroy all copies of the plans) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.45 Tw
(at issue." Considering the court's ruling in the context of the admoni-) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.1 Tw
(tions given in ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(eBay) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, we cannot conclude that the district court prop-) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.17 Tw
(erly performed its equitable functions. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(eBay) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(, 126 S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.17 Tw
(Ct. at 1839.) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.31 Tw
(Therefore, we vacate that portion of its order as an abuse of discre-) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(tion. ) Tj
12 -25.5 Td
1.23 Tw
(In sum, while we affirm the jury's verdict and the district court's) Tj
-12 -12.5 Td
3.14 Tw
(order refusing to enjoin the future leasing or sale of Galloway's) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.3 Tw
(house, we remand this case for further consideration, in light of ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(eBay) Tj
/F2 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.41 Tw
(of Phelps & Associates' request for injunctive relief with respect to) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(the return or destruction of the infringing plans. ) Tj
/F4 11.5 Tf 100 Tz
217.157 -25.5 Td
(AFFIRMED IN PART,) Tj
-86.741 -12.5 Td
(VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
457 -148.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(23) Tj
-250.5067 0 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HRISTOPHER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(HELPS) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( & A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOC) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(. v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLOWAY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 144 -152.25 m 468 -152.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
79 0 obj
3517
endobj
77 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 67 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 78 0 R
>>
endobj
1 0 obj
[ /PDF /Text ]
endobj
80 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
]
>>
endobj
81 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Bold
/Flags 34
/FontBBox [ -168 -218 1000 935 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 139.00
/StemH 69.50
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 676
/XHeight 461
/Ascent 676
/Descent -205
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
6 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F1
/BaseFont /Times-Bold
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 570 570 570 570 570 300 300
250 333 555 500 500 1000 833 333 333 333 500 570 250 333 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 570 570 570 500
930 722 667 722 722 667 611 778 778 389 500 778 667 944 722 778
611 778 722 556 667 722 722 1000 722 722 667 333 278 333 581 500
333 500 556 444 556 444 333 500 556 278 333 556 278 833 556 500
556 556 444 389 333 556 500 722 500 500 444 394 220 394 520 400
722 556 444 500 500 500 500 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 722 722
667 611 556 500 500 500 556 556 500 778 722 722 722 722 722 667
500 333 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 278 500 500 333 333 556 556
667 500 500 500 250 667 540 350 333 500 500 500 1000 1000 722 500
500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 556 333 333 300 333 333 333
1000 722 556 250 250 250 556 389 722 500 556 667 444 747 747 1000
389 1000 389 300 389 389 778 778 667 778 1000 330 778 778 722 722
722 722 722 500 750 278 750 750 278 500 722 556 278 500 500 220 ]
/Encoding 80 0 R
/FontDescriptor 81 0 R
>>
endobj
82 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
]
>>
endobj
83 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Roman
/Flags 34
/FontBBox [ -168 -218 1000 898 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 84.00
/StemH 42.00
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 662
/XHeight 450
/Ascent 683
/Descent -217
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
7 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F2
/BaseFont /Times-Roman
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 564 564 564 564 564 300 300
250 333 408 500 500 833 778 333 333 333 500 564 250 333 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 278 278 564 564 564 444
921 722 667 667 722 611 556 722 722 333 389 722 611 889 722 722
556 722 667 556 611 722 722 944 722 722 611 333 278 333 469 500
333 444 500 444 500 444 333 500 500 278 278 500 278 778 500 500
500 500 333 389 278 500 500 722 500 500 444 480 200 480 541 400
667 500 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 722 722
611 556 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 722 722 722 722 722 722 611
444 333 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 180 444 500 333 333 556 556
611 500 500 500 250 611 453 350 333 444 444 500 1000 1000 722 444
500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 500 333 333 300 333 333 333
1000 722 500 250 250 250 556 389 722 500 500 611 444 760 760 980
333 889 333 276 333 333 722 722 611 722 889 310 722 722 722 722
722 667 722 444 750 278 750 750 278 500 722 500 278 500 500 200 ]
/Encoding 82 0 R
/FontDescriptor 83 0 R
>>
endobj
84 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 240 /apple ]
>>
endobj
85 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Symbol
/Flags 4
/FontBBox [ -180 -293 1090 1010 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 85.00
/StemH 42.50
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 0
/XHeight 0
/Ascent 0
/Descent 0
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
8 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F3
/BaseFont /Symbol
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 333 713 500 549 833 778 439 333 333 500 549 250 549 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 278 278 549 549 549 444
549 722 667 722 612 611 763 603 722 333 631 722 686 889 722 722
768 741 556 592 611 690 439 768 645 795 611 333 863 333 658 500
500 631 549 549 494 439 521 411 603 329 603 549 549 576 521 549
549 521 549 603 439 576 713 686 493 686 494 480 200 480 549 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 620 247 549 167 713 500 753 753 753 753 1042 987 603 987 603
400 549 411 549 549 713 494 460 549 549 549 549 1000 603 1000 658
823 686 795 987 768 768 823 768 768 713 713 713 713 713 713 713
768 713 790 250 250 250 549 250 713 603 603 1042 987 603 987 603
494 329 790 790 786 713 384 384 384 384 384 384 494 494 494 494
790 329 274 686 686 686 384 384 384 384 384 384 494 494 494 250 ]
/Encoding 84 0 R
/FontDescriptor 85 0 R
>>
endobj
86 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
]
>>
endobj
87 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Italic
/Flags 98
/FontBBox [ -169 -217 1010 883 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 76.00
/StemH 38.00
/ItalicAngle -15.50
/CapHeight 653
/XHeight 441
/Ascent 683
/Descent -205
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
9 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F4
/BaseFont /Times-Italic
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 675 675 675 675 675 300 300
250 333 420 500 500 833 778 333 333 333 500 675 250 333 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 675 675 675 500
920 611 611 667 722 611 611 722 722 333 444 667 556 833 667 722
611 722 611 500 556 722 611 833 611 556 556 389 278 389 422 500
333 500 500 444 500 444 278 500 500 278 278 444 278 722 500 500
500 500 389 389 278 500 444 667 444 444 389 400 275 400 541 400
667 500 444 500 500 500 500 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 611 611
611 611 500 500 500 500 500 500 444 722 722 611 611 611 611 611
500 389 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 214 556 500 333 333 500 500
611 500 500 500 250 611 523 350 333 556 556 500 889 1000 722 500
500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 500 333 333 300 333 333 333
889 667 500 250 250 250 500 389 556 444 500 556 389 760 760 980
333 889 333 276 333 333 722 722 556 722 944 310 722 722 722 722
722 667 556 500 750 278 750 750 278 500 667 500 278 500 500 275 ]
/Encoding 86 0 R
/FontDescriptor 87 0 R
>>
endobj
10 0 obj
<<
/Kids [3 0 R 11 0 R 14 0 R 17 0 R 20 0 R 23 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 88 0 R
>>
endobj
29 0 obj
<<
/Kids [26 0 R 30 0 R 33 0 R 36 0 R 39 0 R 42 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 88 0 R
>>
endobj
48 0 obj
<<
/Kids [45 0 R 49 0 R 52 0 R 55 0 R 58 0 R 61 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 88 0 R
>>
endobj
67 0 obj
<<
/Kids [64 0 R 68 0 R 71 0 R 74 0 R 77 0 R]
/Count 5
/Type /Pages
/Parent 88 0 R
>>
endobj
88 0 obj
<<
/Kids [10 0 R 29 0 R 48 0 R 67 0 R]
/Count 23
/Type /Pages
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
>>
endobj
2 0 obj
<<
/Type /Catalog
/Pages 88 0 R
>>
endobj
89 0 obj
<<
/CreationDate (Thursday February 8, 2007 11:12:59)
/Creator (VERSACOMP R05.2)
/Producer (ECMP5)
>>
endobj
xref
0 90
0000000000 65535 f
0000097899 00000 n
0000108005 00000 n
0000003928 00000 n
0000000044 00000 n
0000003905 00000 n
0000099364 00000 n
0000102016 00000 n
0000103570 00000 n
0000106217 00000 n
0000107432 00000 n
0000007855 00000 n
0000004142 00000 n
0000007831 00000 n
0000012135 00000 n
0000008049 00000 n
0000012111 00000 n
0000016144 00000 n
0000012340 00000 n
0000016120 00000 n
0000020354 00000 n
0000016338 00000 n
0000020330 00000 n
0000024164 00000 n
0000020548 00000 n
0000024140 00000 n
0000027654 00000 n
0000024358 00000 n
0000027630 00000 n
0000107548 00000 n
0000032258 00000 n
0000027848 00000 n
0000032234 00000 n
0000036846 00000 n
0000032463 00000 n
0000036822 00000 n
0000041017 00000 n
0000037053 00000 n
0000040993 00000 n
0000045014 00000 n
0000041224 00000 n
0000044990 00000 n
0000049102 00000 n
0000045221 00000 n
0000049078 00000 n
0000053128 00000 n
0000049309 00000 n
0000053104 00000 n
0000107665 00000 n
0000057373 00000 n
0000053335 00000 n
0000057349 00000 n
0000062287 00000 n
0000057580 00000 n
0000062263 00000 n
0000066323 00000 n
0000062494 00000 n
0000066299 00000 n
0000071012 00000 n
0000066530 00000 n
0000070988 00000 n
0000075509 00000 n
0000071219 00000 n
0000075485 00000 n
0000079996 00000 n
0000075716 00000 n
0000079972 00000 n
0000107782 00000 n
0000084868 00000 n
0000080203 00000 n
0000084844 00000 n
0000089814 00000 n
0000085075 00000 n
0000089790 00000 n
0000093910 00000 n
0000090021 00000 n
0000093886 00000 n
0000097719 00000 n
0000094117 00000 n
0000097695 00000 n
0000097932 00000 n
0000099084 00000 n
0000100584 00000 n
0000101736 00000 n
0000103232 00000 n
0000103304 00000 n
0000104782 00000 n
0000105934 00000 n
0000107892 00000 n
0000108061 00000 n
trailer
<<
/Size 90
/Root 2 0 R
/Info 89 0 R
>>
startxref
108198
%%EOF
2 0 obj
<>/OCGs[101 0 R]>>/Pages 88 0 R/Type/Catalog>>
endobj
3 0 obj
<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]/XObject<>>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
6 0 obj
<>
endobj
7 0 obj
<>
endobj
8 0 obj
<>
endobj
9 0 obj
<>
endobj
89 0 obj
<>
endobj
90 0 obj
<>
endobj
91 0 obj
<>/Font<>>>/Fields 103 0 R>>
endobj
92 0 obj
<>stream
Thursday February 8, 2007 11:12:59
ECMP5
VERSACOMP R05.2
2011-02-18T09:28:59-05:00
2011-02-18T09:28:59-05:00
application/pdf
uuid:cc26f63d-f572-428c-a4a4-bb2ab40966f4
uuid:73fe8632-9d69-4641-8873-76c237d5ef53
endstream
endobj
93 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 271.326 644.1 Td
(PUBLISHED)Tj
/T1_0 20 Tf
2 Tw 85 Tz -124.106 -28.4 Td
(UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz 75.476 -18 Td
(FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT)Tj
/T1_1 11.5 Tf
0 Tw -78.696 -18 Td
( )Tj
/T1_2 20 Tf
2 Tw 181.62 -17.6 Td
(\374)Tj
/T1_1 11.5 Tf
1.2 Tw -181.62 -2.4 Td
(C)Tj
/T1_1 8 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 144 652.5 Tm
7.671 -92.8 Td
(HRISTOPHER)Tj
/T1_1 11.5 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( P)Tj
/T1_1 8 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (HELPS)Tj
/T1_1 11.5 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( & A)Tj
/T1_1 8 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (SSOCIATES)Tj
/T1_1 11.5 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (,)Tj
-7.67 -12.5 Td
(LLC,)Tj
/T1_3 11.5 Tf
84.864 -12.5 Td
(Plaintiff-Appellant,)Tj
/T1_1 11.5 Tf
-2.176 -18 Td
(v.)Tj
-82.688 -18 Td
(R. W)Tj
/T1_1 8 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (AYNE)Tj
/T1_1 11.5 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( G)Tj
/T1_1 8 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (ALLOWAY)Tj
/T1_1 11.5 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (,)Tj
/T1_3 11.5 Tf
79.148 -12.5 Td
(Defendant-Appellee,)Tj
/T1_1 11.5 Tf
3.54 -18 Td
(v.)Tj
148.646 -12.5 Td
(No. 05-2266)Tj
/T1_2 20 Tf
2 Tw -49.714 -1.4 Td
(\375)Tj
/T1_1 11.5 Tf
1.2 Tw -181.62 -4.1 Td
(S)Tj
/T1_1 8 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (IMONINI)Tj
/T1_1 11.5 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( B)Tj
/T1_1 8 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (UILDERS)Tj
/T1_1 11.5 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, I)Tj
/T1_1 8 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NCORPORATED)Tj
/T1_1 11.5 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (,)Tj
/T1_3 11.5 Tf
63.949 -12.5 Td
(Third Party Defendant.)Tj
/T1_1 11.5 Tf
-63.949 -36 Td
(D)Tj
/T1_1 8 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (ONALD)Tj
/T1_1 11.5 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( A. G)Tj
/T1_1 8 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (ARDNER)Tj
/T1_1 11.5 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( A)Tj
/T1_1 8 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (RCHITECTS)Tj
/T1_1 11.5 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (,)Tj
0 -12.5 TD
(I)Tj
/T1_1 8 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NCORPORATED)Tj
/T1_1 11.5 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; D)Tj
/T1_1 8 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (ONALD)Tj
/T1_1 11.5 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( A. G)Tj
/T1_1 8 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (ARDNER)Tj
/T1_1 11.5 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (,)Tj
T*
(I)Tj
/T1_1 8 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NCORPORATED)Tj
/T1_1 11.5 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; F)Tj
/T1_1 8 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (RANK)Tj
/T1_1 11.5 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( B)Tj
/T1_1 8 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (ETZ)Tj
/T1_1 11.5 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(A)Tj
/T1_1 8 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (SSOCIATES)Tj
/T1_1 11.5 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, I)Tj
/T1_1 8 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NCORPORATED)Tj
/T1_1 11.5 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (,)Tj
/T1_3 11.5 Tf
40.304 -12.5 Td
(Amici Supporting Appellant.)Tj
/T1_2 20 Tf
2 Tw 1.6 Ts 141.315 -8.6 Td
(\376)Tj
/T1_1 11.5 Tf
1.2 Tw 0 Ts -126.392 -24.1 Td
(Appeal from the United States District Court)Tj
-26.103 -11.8 Td
(for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.)Tj
35.967 -11.9 Td
(Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge.)Tj
62.099 -11.9 Td
(\(CA-03-429-3\))Tj
-27.353 -24.2 Td
(Argued: October 24, 2006)Tj
-4.152 -23.8 Td
(Decided: February 12, 2007)Tj
-79.104 -24.2 Td
(Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (Judges.)Tj
0.17 Tw -16.581 -48 Td
(Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by published opinion.)Tj
1.32 Tw 0 -11.8 TD
(Judge Niemeyer wrote the opinion, in which Judge Motz and Judge)Tj
1.2 Tw 0 -11.9 TD
(Traxler joined. )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 144 652.5 cm
0.9 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -72.35 cm
0 0 m
183.8 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 144 652.5 cm
1.2 w
q 1 0 0 1 186.6 -182.6 cm
0 0 m
0 102.4 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 144 652.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -232.55 cm
0 0 m
173 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 144 652.5 cm
1.2 w
q 1 0 0 1 186.6 -302 cm
0 0 m
0 102.4 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 144 652.5 cm
0.9 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -308.95 cm
0 0 m
183.3 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 144 652.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -464.85 cm
0 0 m
324 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
/Artifact <>BDC
q
1 0 0 1 242.125 766 cm
/GS0 gs
0 Tw /Fm0 Do
Q
EMC
endstream
endobj
94 0 obj
<>>>/Resources 96 0 R/Subtype/Form>>stream
0 g 0 G 0 i 0 J []0 d 0 j 1 w 10 M 0 Tc 0 Tw 100 Tz 0 TL 0 Tr 0 Ts
BT
/TimesNewRoman 10 Tf
0 g
0 -7.842 Td
(Rehearing ) Tj
43.594 0 Td
(granted, ) Tj
34.985 0 Td
(July ) Tj
19.17 0 Td
(5, ) Tj
10 0 Td
(2007) Tj
ET
endstream
endobj
95 0 obj
<>
endobj
96 0 obj
<>
endobj
97 0 obj
<>
endobj
98 0 obj
<>
endobj
99 0 obj
<>stream
HUy\SW/MǦ,n";
! RB$@HYUF6Y""ÈV+*"
\hv8
EL,^^sy hc? q $ "O/(
B 1Pb
U!o%П;и7
!4z kyLXwS2(ۅyp.@c
FXa%(F')C̵ qxޅ,٨p,>5) @,9>)=.bg5+!wKK *suV@V!{?Oaæ8~<-LnHm ĺ h&YL5À&LO1*M?69`g#ąS,oBz@-@UA-fbOMA.`RJu1zPAeG$MR"!DjC0R~'ѯ3 $bv-~@@iQϭjR6ÑW-/u7>p T5O#.$|(AQc~[
'aHũ|a"Uj4}0~,*Z)L~hpp#F|1u)Y[Q~~uJ '5gY8أj8eT|wEh
iK9,s߀g^;8ܴA'8YkQR[ 5C!ߦ,l5taѬrFfxS8YvsS
*'XǨK~^z8v&1TiU9-rѾU> nQya/J౼\3K7{okXEyWJ<('4ixoR;.AKjaS[?`usD6GwƆ>ūd-rJ=PDɜ`hL=%t`FłRJxÑ3x1.x]SgiW~O{33'0g@c<ʏCSDl)F9b@hkjsa6,>V(`Tbh&sk1RD`rEA@WsFkc ]ȍe,GXGpYB'F=B
k}b.?j5oz@W9|!WDBhiJ[B}Y6Μ83Hv}6=[lUꚵno]a4-q=6YЋkr/%fĘ8SEJ/vZYTHT>rJá'~[݇sT;$2[YSVuO7լi-qNdo{8^w3ԫ}GvFi8U\-wVs{>NQ$lNQ%fmlwzzB1l'?oCPrJdG=PRMs&k6k_O8հlLkdβ'oS&Gj8XrJoz"YSފ{Ĭ嗢\jȂYuMǰZJڼY~f/z&[=hr3RI*k<>3zA
,tZ8>7C.#5&\mM2ʥ"*%S8S6"
ar֠|?kkzyGxDdٖkieUJ3m#RI13uL
"`-AVY94؝J䄔 *܅rkAtmۭؓ
/ @`1؛ 5