FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT MAY 14, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 14495

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 2 2 7 8 0 - C V- P AS P A U L O R A V E C , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s S U N N Y I S L E S L U X U R Y V E N T U R E S , L .C ., S I E G E R S U A R E Z A R C H I T E C T U R A L P A R T N E R S H I P I N C ., D E Z E R P R O P E R T I E S L L C , D E Z E R D E V E L O P M E N T , L L C , M I C H A E L D E Z E R , e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 14, 2008) B efo re T JO F L A T , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es.2

W IL S O N , C i rc ui tJudg e: P l a i nt i f f , P a ul O r a ve c , br oughtthi s a c t i on unde rthe C opy r i ghtA c t , 17 U . S . C . §§ 101 e t

s e q. , a ga i ns ts e ve r a l pa r t i e s a s s oc i a t e d w i th the T rum p P a l a c e a nd th e Tru mp Ro y a l e ( c o l l e c t i v e l y , “ Tru mp Bu i l d i n g s ” ) , tw i n h i g h - r i s e c o n d o mi n i u ms in S u n n y I s le s B e a c h , F lo r id a . O r a v e c a lle g e d th a t th e s e d e f e n d a n ts in f

r in g e d h is c opy r i ght e d a r c hi t e c tur a l de s i gns thr ough the de s i gn, de ve l opm e nt , a nd construct i on of the T rum p B ui l di ng s. T he di stri ctcourtgrant ed sum m ary j ud gm entt o d ef

endant s a nd deni ed O ra vec’ s m ot i on for l ea ve t o fi l e athi rd a m e nde d c om pl a i nt . A f t e rthor ough r e vi e w of

the r e c or d, w e c onc l ude tha tthe g r a n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t w a s p r o p e ra n d th a t th e r e w a s n o ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n in th e d e n i a l o f

l e a v e t o a me n d . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e a f f i rm. I . B AC KG RO UN D O ra vec w as bo rn i n C ze chosl ov aki a a nd w as tra i ned and l i ce nsed as an ar chi t ec ti n thatcoun try . A ft eri m m i grat i ng t o the U ni t ed S t at es i n 1 98 2, O ra vec w o r k e d a s a d e s i g n e rf

o ra r c h i t e c tu r a l f

i rms i n N e w Y o rk , a n d l a t e rf o ra M i a mi f i r m tha tde s i gns a nd bui l ds r e a l e s t a t e a nd pr om ot i ona l di s pl a y s . A l though not lic e n s e dto p r a c tic e a r c h ite c tu r e in th e U n ite d S ta te s , O r a v e c h a s c o n tin u e d to pu rs ue thati nt er es tdu ri ng hi s s pare t i m e. In 19 95 and 1 99 6, O ra vec devel op ed a des i gn for ahi gh -r i se bu i l di ng thatOravec obtained a c opy right reg istration for another ver sion of his design in 2002. 1 Oravec admitted that the defendants could not havecopied this work be causetheir designs were alre ady completed at the time the 2002 materials werecre ated. Thecourt also found that Oravec h adab an d o n edany

co p y ri ghti nt er es th e h adi nth e 2 0 0 2 d es i gn . Or av ec d o es n o tch al l en ge the sefinding s o n a

pp e al. 3 fe atured the use of a l t ernat i ng concave and conv ex se gm ent s a nd el evat or cores pr otrudi ng thr ough the bui l di ng’ s r oof l i ne . O r a ve c appl i e d t o r e gi s t e rthi s de s i gn w ith th e U .S . C o p y r ig h t O f f ic e a n d w a s is s u e d a c e r tif ic a te o f r e g is tr a tio n o n J u ly 1, 19 96 (“ 19 96 C op yr i gh t ”) . A ft erm aki ng ce rt ai n ref i nem ent s, O ra vec obt ai ned an a d d itio n a l c o p y r ig h t r e g is tr a tio n o n M a y 2 , 1 9 9 7 ( “1 9 9 7 C o p y r ig h t” ) . H o p in g to 1 s e e h is d e s ig n c o n s tru c te d , O r a v e c u n d e r to o k e f f o r ts to m a rk e t it to d e v e lo p e r s in S outh F l or i da a nd e l s e w he r e . B e tw e e n 1996 a nd 1999, O r a ve c m a i l e d ve r s i ons of hi s de s i gn t o a s m a ny a s 120 i ndi vi dua l s a nd c om pa ni e s a nd m a de s e ve r a l i np e r s o n p r e s e n ta tio n s to d e v e lo p e r s . D ur i ng the s a m e t i m e pe r i od, de f e nda nt s M i c ha e l a nd G i l D e z e ri ni t i a t e d the p r o c e s s o f

d e v e l o p i n g th e b e a c h f

r o n tr e s o r tth a tw o u l d b e th e s i t e o f th e Tru mp B ui l di ngs . M i c ha e l D e z e rpur c ha s e d a pa r c e l of l a nd i n S unny I s l e s B e a c h a nd c ol l abor a t e d on i t s de ve l opm e ntw i th a c om pa ny na m e d C ol oni a l R i dge D evel op m ent , L L C (“ C ol on i al R i dg e” ). In the l at e 199 0s, C ol on i al R i dg e hi re d de f e nda ntS i e ge rS ua r e z A r c hi t e c tur a l P a r tne r s hi p, I nc . ( “ S i e ge rS ua r e z ” ) t o de s i gn tw o b ui l di ng s f

or the prop erty. T he ori gi nal S i egerS uare z des i gn s c on si st ed of aThe hotel is now known a s the Trump International Sonesta Resort. Its design is not at 2 issue in this case. 4 c ondom i ni um hot e l a nd a Y - s hape d r e s i de nt i a l c ondom i ni um . S ubs e que nt l y , the 2 D e z e r s a c qui r e d a ddi t i ona l l a nd a nd de c i de d tha ta l a r ge rr e s i de nt i a l c ondom i ni um s houl d be c ons truc t e d. S i e ge rS ua r e z m odi f i e d i t s de s i gn, a nd the r e s ul tw a s the desi gn for the curre ntT rum p P al ac e. T he di stri ctcourtfoun d thatthi s des i gn w as subst ant i al l y c om pl et e i n M ar ch of 20 00 . L at er , af t erthe pu rc hase of addi t i on al p r o p e r ty , th e p r o

je c t w a s e x p a n d e d to in c lu d e a s e c o n d r e s id e n tia l c o n d o m in iu m . Si e g e rSu a r e z d e s i g n e d th i s s e c o n d b u i l d i n g , w h i c h w o u l d b e c o me th e Tru mp R oyal e, as es se nt i al l y am i rr or i m age of the T rum p P al ac e. O n F e brua ry 15, 2003, O r a ve c s a w a ne w s pape ra dve r t i s e m e ntf e a tur i ng a phot ogr aph of

a m ode l of

the T rum p P a l a c e . T he f ol l ow i ng da y , he vi s i t e d the r e s o r t ’ s s a l e s o f

f i c e a n d v i e w e d mo d e l s a n d b r o c h u r e s d e p i c t i n g th e Tru mp B ui l di ngs . A tthe t i m e , ne i the rbui l di ng ha d be e n c ons truc t e d; onl y the f ounda t i on of the T rum p P a l a c e ha d be e n l a i d. B e l i e vi ng tha tthe de s i gns r e s e m bl e d hi s ow n, O r a ve c c ons ul t e d w i th a tt orne y s a nd w a s a dvi s e d t o s e c ur e c opy r i ghtr e gi s tr a t i ons for a l l of hi s unregi st er ed desi gn s i n o rdert o sat i sf y the j uri sdi ct i on al prer equi si t es f o ra n in f r in g e m e n t a c tio n . See 17 U . S . C . § 411( a ) ( “ [ N ] o a c t i on f ori nf r i nge m e nt of the c opy r i ghti n a ny U ni t e d S t a t e s w or k s ha l l be i ns t i tut e d unt i l pr e r e gi s tr a t i on o rr e g is tr a tio n o f

th e c o p y r ig h t c la im h a s b e e n m a d e in a c c o r d a n c e w ith th is5

t i t l e. ”) . O r a ve c the r e a f

t e robt a i ne d tw o a ddi t i ona l c opy r i ghtr e gi s tr a t i ons , onl y one o f w h ic h ( th e “M a r c h 2 0 0 4 C o p y r ig h t” ) is r e le v a n t to th is ap p e a l. O n th is r e gi s tr a t i on f

or m , O r a ve c i ndi c a t e d tha tthe s ubm i tt e d m a t e r i a l s w e r e de r i va t i ve of the w or ks c ove r e d by hi s thr e e pr i orr e gi s t e r e d c opy r i ght s , w hi c h he l i s t e d by re gi stra t i on nu m ber. H e a l so prov i ded the fol l ow i ng st at em enti n space 6b , un der th e s u b h e a d in g “M a te r ia l A d d e d to T h is W o rk ” : “T h is m a te r ia l in c lu d e s a ll p rev i o u s d esi g n s an d v ersi o n s an d d ep i ct[si c] th em i n 3 -D m o d el s/p h o t o g rap h s, ren d eri n g s/ 4 3 p ag es. ” O rav ec i n i t i al l y att em p t ed t o cl ai m p ro t ect i o n fo r th ese m a t e r i a l s a s a r c hi t e c tur a l w or ks , a s he ha d done w i th r e s pe c tt o hi s pr e vi ous d e s ig n s . See 17 U . S . C . § 102( a ) ( 8) . H ow e ve r , a f t e rr e c e i vi ng hi s appl i c a t i on, the C o p y r ig h t O f

f ic e in f o r m e d O r a v e c th a t th is c la im w a s in c o n s is te n t w ith h is s ta te m e n t th a t th e c la im p e r ta in e d to s c u lp tu r e s , a r tw o rk , a n d p h o to g r ap h s . See 17 U . S . C . § 102( a ) ( 5) ( e s t abl i s hi ng c opy r i ghtpr ot e c t i on f or“ pi c t or i a l , gr aphi c , a nd sc ul ptural w orks”) . T he O ff i ce advi se d O ra vec: “ If

you h ave c re at ed ori gi nal sc ul ptures , artw ork, and p ho t og raph s thatw er e bas ed on previ ou sl y r egi st er ed ar chi t ec tural w ork cl ai m s, bu tyou are no tno w re gi st er i ng any new ar chi t ec tural w or k a uthor s hi p a nd pl a ns , the n s pa c e 2 [ “ N a tur e of A uthor s hi p” ] m us tr e f

l e c tthe new cl ai m as desc ri bed i n space 6b ” ( em ph as i s om i tt ed). T he O ff i ce di re ct ed6

O r a ve c t o a m e nd hi s appl i c a t i on by de l e t i ng the a r c hi t e c tur a l w ork c l a i m a nd c h e c k in g o n ly th e b o x e s f o r“3 - D im e n s io n a l s c u lp tu r e ,” “2 - D im e n s io n a l a r tw o r k ,” a nd “ P hot ogr aph. ” O r a ve c m a de the s e c ha nge s a nd r e - f i l e d hi s appl i c a t i on. In N o v em b er 2 0 0 4 , O rav ec fi l ed su i tu n d er th e C o p yri g h tA ctag ai n st n u m e r o u s in d iv id u a ls a n d e n titie s a s s o c ia te d w ith th e T ru m p B u ild in g s . S p eci fi cal l y, O rav ec su ed S i eg er S u arez, i t s p ri n ci p al s C h arl es M . S i eg er an d Jo se J. S uare z, and real es t at e devel op er s S un ny Is l es L ux ury V entures L . C . and D ez er P ropert i es L L C on a theory of di re ctcopyri gh ti nfri ng em ent . In addi t i on , O ra vec a s s e r t e d c l a i m s of

vi c a r i ous c opy r i ghti nf r i nge m e nta nd c ontr i but ory c opy r i ght i n fri n g em en tag ai n stv ari o u s d ev el o p er en t i t i es an d th ei r p ri n ci p al s. I n A pr i l 2006, the pa r t i e s f i l e d c r os s m ot i ons f

ors um m a ry j udgm e nton a v a r ie ty o f

is s u e s . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t h e ld th r e e s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t h e a r in g s in J u ly 20 06 . D uri ng the fi rs thear i ng on Jul y 7, the courtexpres se d the vi ew thatO ra vec c oul d notpr e va i l on hi s c l a i m s pe r t a i ni ng t o the M a r c h 2004 C opy r i ghtbe c a us e the c ons truc t i on of

a bui l di ng c a nnot , a s a m a tt e rof l a w , i nf r i nge the c opy r i ghti n a p ic to r ia l, g r ap h ic , o rs c u lp tu r a l w o rk ( “P G S w o rk ” ) r e g is te r e d u n d e r1 7 U .S .C . § 1 0 2 ( a ) ( 5 ) . I n r e s p o n s e , O r a v e c f ile d a s e r ie s o f

n e w c o p y r ig h t ap p lic a tio n s w ith the C opy r i ghtO f

f i c e on J ul y 11 i n or de rt o r e gi s t e rthe M a r c h 2004 C opy r i ght m at er i al s a s a rc hi t ec tural w orks un der § 10 2(a) (8). T he fol l ow i ng day, O ra vecThese r ulings disposed of all other issues in the case . Nonethele ss, the court also ruled 3 on several additional claims and de fense s raised by the par ties. Be causewe a ffirm the district court on the dispositive issues, we ne ed not address the other portions of its decision. 7 s o u g h t le a v e to f

ile a th ir d a m e n d e d c o m p la in t b a s e d o n th e s e n e w r e g is tr a tio n s . A ta he a r i ng tha ts a m e da y , the c our tde ni e d l e a ve t o a m e nd be c a us e the r e gi s tr a t i on c e r t i f

i c a t e s ha d y e tt o i s s ue a nd be c a us e the de a dl i ne f orf i l i ng am endm ent s had pass ed m ore than a ye area rl i er . N i ne days l at er , O ra vec r ec ei ved th e r e q u e s te d c e r tif

ic a te s f r o m th e C o p y r ig h t O f

f ic e a n d m o v e d th e c o u r t to r e c ons i de ri t s de ni a l of

l e a ve t o a m e nd. O n J u ly 2 4 , 2 0 0 6 , th e c o u r t e n te r e d a n o r d e rg r a n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t to d e f e n d a n ts o n O r a v e c ’s in f r in g e m e n t c la im s a n d d e n y in g O r a v e c ’s m o tio n to a m e n d . T h e c o u r t f

o u n d , in te ra lia , tha tO r a ve c c oul d note s t abl i s h i nf r i nge m e nt 3 of hi s 1996 a nd 1997 C opy r i ght s be c a us e no r e a s onabl e j ury c oul d f i nd tha tthe T rum p B ui l di ngs a r e s ubs t a nt i a l l y s i m i l a rt o O r a ve c ’ s 1996 a nd 1997 de s i gns . T he c our tf ound tha tO r a ve c c oul d notpr e va i l on the ba s i s of hi s M a r c h 2004 C o p y r ig h t f

o rth e r e a s o n s in d ic a te d a t th e J u ly 7 h e a r in g . A s to O r a v e c ’s m o tio n to a m e n d , th e c o u r t r e ite r a te d its c o n c lu s io n th a t O r a v e c ’s d e la y w a s u n r e a s o n ab le gi ven the expi ra t i on of the deadl i ne for f i l i ng am endm ent s. T he courtfurther not ed tha ttr i a l w a s s i x w e e ks a w a y a nd tha tO r a ve c ha d be e n on not i c e of the c ha l l e nge to h is M a r c h 2 0 0 4 C o p y r ig h t c la im s in c e A p r il 1 0 , 2 0 0 6 , th e d a te th e d e f e n d a n ts8

fi l ed th ei r m o t i o n fo r su m m ary j u d g m en t . O rav ec n o w ch al l en g es each o f th ese ru l i n g s. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . Su m m a ry Ju d

g m en t S ta n da rd W e r e v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s g r a n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t de no vo , c ons trui ng a l l e vi de nc e i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o O r a ve c , the non- m ovi ng p a r ty . L ei

gh v. W arner B ros. , Inc. , 2 1 2 F. 3 d 1 2 1 0 , 1 2 1 4 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) . So me c our t s ha ve vi e w e d s um m a ry j udgm e nta s i nappr opr i a t e i n the c opy r i ght in f r in g e m e n t c o n te x t b e c a u s e o f th e in h e r e n tly s u b

je c tiv e n a tu r e o f

th e in q u iry . Se e B e al v . P ar am ount

P i c tur e s C or

p. , 20 F . 3d 454, 459 ( 11th C i r . 1994) ( c i t i ng H o e h lin gv . U

n iv e rs a l C ity S tu d io s , I

n c ., 6 1 8 F .2 d 9 7 2 , 9 7 7 ( 2 d C ir . 1 9 8 0 ) ) . H o w ev er, w e h av e reco g n i zed th at“ n o n -i n fri n g em en tm ay b e d et erm i n ed as a m a tte ro f la w o n a m o tio n f

o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t, e ith e rb e c a u s e th e s im ila r ity b etw ee n tw o w o rk s c o n ce rn s o n ly n o n -c o p yr ig h tab le elem en ts o f th e p lain ti ff’s wo r k , o rb e c a u s e n o r e a s o n ab l e j u ry , p r o p e r l y i n s tru c t e d , c o u l d f i n d th a tth e two w orks ar e s ub st ant i al l y s i m i l ar . ” H er zog v. C ast l e R ock E ntm ’t , 193 F . 3d 1241, 12 47 (11th C i r. 19 99 ) ( per c uri am ) ( “ w el l -r ea soned” di stri ctcourtop i ni on af fi rm ed a n d a n n e x e d to E le v e n th C ir c u it ru lin g ) ; ac c or d B e al , 20 F . 3d a t459. B . 1 9 9 6a n d

1 9 9 7C o p y r ig h tsI f the plaintiff c annot demonstrateacc ess, he or she still may

establish copying by 4 showingthat the works a

re “ strikingly

simil ar.” Corwi n v. W

alt Disney Co. , 475 F.3d 1239, 1253 (11th Cir. 2007). 9 1 . L eg a l Fra m ew o rk T o e s t abl i s h c opy r i ghti nf r i nge m e nt , “ tw o e l e m e nt s m us tbe pr ove n: ( 1) ow ne r s hi p of

a va l i d c opy r i ght , a nd ( 2) c opy i ng of c ons t i tue nte l e m e nt s of the w ork thatar e ori gi nal . ” Fe is t P ubl ’ ns , I

nc . v . R ur al

T e l . Se r v . C o. , 499 U . S . 340, 361, 111 S . C t . 1282, 1296, 113 L . E d. 2d 358 ( 1991) . “ I f the pl a i nt i f

f doe s not have di re ctproo f of c op yi ng , the pl ai nt i ff m ayshow copyi ng by dem on stra t i ng that the defendant s had ac ce ss t o the copyri gh t ed w ork and thatthe w orks ar e

‘ subst ant i al l y s i m i l ar . ’ ” H e r z og , 193 F . 3d a t1248. H e r e , the di s tr i c tc our tf ound 4 thatO ra vec ow ned v al i d cop yr i gh t s i n h i s 199 6 and 19 97 desi gn s, and thatthere w ere d i sp u t ed i ssu es o f factas t o w h eth er certai n d efen d an t s h ad access t o th o se d esi g n s. T h u s, su m m ary j u d g m en ttu rn ed o n th e i ssu e o f su b st an t i al si m i l ari ty. W e have defi ned sub st ant i al si m i l ar i ty a s e xi st i ng “ w here an avera ge l ay obs e r ve rw oul d r e c ogni z e the a l l e ge d c opy a s ha vi ng be e n appr opr i a t e d f r om the copyri gh t ed w ork. ” O ri gi na l App alachi an A rtw orks , Inc. v. T oy L of t , Inc. , 684 F . 2d 821, 829 ( 11th C i r . 1982) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks om i tt e d) . N ota l l c opy i ng c o n s titu te s in f

r in g e m e n t, h o w e v e r , see Feist , 499 U . S . a t361, 111 S . C t . a t1296, an d th erefo re w e h av e em p h asi zed th atth e su b st an t i al si m i l ari ty an al ysi s “ m u stIn Herzog, we a pproved a district court opinion that framed this analysis as a two-pa rt 5 inquiry simil ar to that e stablished by the Ninth Circuit in Sid &Marty Krofft T elev ision Productions, Inc. v. McD onald’s Corp. , 562 F.2d 1157 ( 9th Cir. 1977), and its prog eny . That approach involves “ex trinsic” and “ intrinsic” tests, which the c ourt in Herzog described as fo llo ws : Under the extrinsi c test, a court will inquire into whether, as an obje ctive matter , the works are substantially

simil ar in prote cted expression. As a pa rt of this test, a cour

t wi ll de terminewh e ther a plaintif f s e e ks to p ro te c t only

un c op y ri ghtabl ee lements ; if so , th ec ourt

wi ll gra nt summ ary

judgment f

or de fendant. Under thee xtrins icte st, expert testimony and analy tic dissection are appropriate. Under the intrinsic test, a court will deter

mine whether , upon proper instruction, a re asonablejury would find that the works a

re s ub s t anti ally

simil ar. Acourt may

grant summary

judgment for de fendant a s a matter of law if the simila rity betw e en th etw o w or

ksc on c ern s o nly noncopy rightable elements of the plaintiff’ s work or if no rea sonable jury would find that the two works a

re substantially

simil ar. 193 F.3d at 1257 (citations omitted). This aspec t of the Herzog decision is something of

an anomaly

in our copy

right jurisp rudenc e . Prior

to t hat c a se , th ee xtrins ic/intrins icframewo rk had n ot b e en re c ognize d in this circuit, and wehave not referenc ed it in subsequent published dec isions dealing with the issue of substantial similarity . See, e .g. , Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co. , 268 F.3d 1257, 12 66 -6 7 ( 11 th C ir . 2 00 1) ; Leigh , 212 F.3d at 1214-16. In any event, webelieve that the Herzog

(continued...) 10 f o c u s o n s im ila r ity o f

e x p r e s s io n , i . e. , m a t e r i a l s us c e pt i bl e of c opy r i ght prot ec t i on . ” B e al , 2 0 F .3 d a t 4 5 9 n .4 ; s e e al s o L e i gh , 21 2 F . 3d at12 14 (s t at i ng that a c op yr i gh tpl ai nt i ff

“ m ustes t abl i sh spec i fi ca l l y thatthe al l egedl y i nfri ng i ng w ork i s s ubs t a nt i a l l y s i m i l a rt o the pl a i nt i f f’ s w ork w i th regard t o i t s protec ted e le m e n ts ” ) . “T h u s , in a n a c tio n f o rin f r in g e m e n t, it m u s t b e d e te rm in e d b o th w hether the si m i l ar i t i es betw ee n the w orks ar e s ub st ant i al fr om the po i ntof vi ew o f th e la y [ o b s e r v e r ] a n d w h e th e rth o s e s im ila r itie s in v o lv e c o p y r ig h tab le m at er i al . ” H

e r z og , 193 F . 3d a t1248. 5(...continued) 5 f o r mu l ati o ni s n o tu s e f

u li nth i s c a s eb e c a

u s eth etw o t e s t s u l ti m at e ly m erg ei nt o a s i n g l ei n qui r

y: whether a re asonablejury

could find the c ompeting de signs substantially simil ar at the level of protec ted expression. See B eal , 20 F.3d at 459 n.4 (noting that “both paths that lead to summary judgment—simi larity

that concerns only

noncopy rightable elements, or the impossibili ty of a properly instructed jury

findingsubstantial simi larity —may involve a similar inquiry”). 11 I n i de nt i f y i ng the pr ot e c t e d e l e m e nt s of a pl a i nt i f

f’ s w or k, the c our tm us tbe m in d f u l o f th e f u n d a m e n ta l a x io m th a t c o p y r ig h t p r o te c tio n d o e s n o t e x te n d to i d eas b u to n l y t o p art i cu l ar ex p ressi o n s o f i d eas. 1 7 U . S . C . § 1 0 2 (b ) (“ In n o case do es copyri gh tprot ec t i on for a n o ri gi nal w ork o f autho rs hi p ext end t o any i dea, p ro ced u re, p ro cess, syst em , m eth o d o f o p erat i o n , co n cep t , p ri n ci p l e, o r d i sco v ery . . . .” ) ; H a rp er & R o w P u b l ish ers v. N a t i o n E n ters. , 4 7 1 U .S . 5 3 9 , 5 5 6 , 1 0 5 S . C t. 2218, 2228, 85 L . E d. 2d 588 ( 1985) ( “ N o a uthorm a y c opy r i ghthi s i de a s orthe f a c ts h e n a rr a te s .” ) ; C o rw in , 47 5 F . 3d at12 50 (s am e) . T hi s di st i nct i on — kn ow n as the i de a / e xpr e s s i on di c hot om y— c a n be di f f i c ul tt o appl y , a s the r e i s no br i ghtl i ne sep arat i n g th e i d eas co n v eyed b y a w o rk fro m th e sp eci fi c ex p ressi o n o f th o se i d eas. A s Ju d g e L earn ed H an d reco g n i zed i n an i n fl u en t i al o p i n i o n : “ O b v i o u sl y, no pr i nc i pl e c a n be s t a t e d a s t o w he n a n i m i t a t orha s gone be y ond c opy i ng the

‘ i de a , ’ a nd ha s borr ow e d i t s ‘ e xpr e s s i on. ’ D e c i s i ons m us tthe r e f or e i ne vi t abl y be ad hoc . ” P e te rP an Fabr i c s , I nc . v . M ar t i n W e i ne rC or p. , 274 F . 2d 487, 489 ( 2d C ir . 1 9 6 0 ) . N e v e r th e le s s , in a tte m p tin g to d is tin g u is h b e tw e e n id e a s a n d e x p r e s s io n , it is12

u s e f u l to n o te th e p o lic y p u rp o s e s s e rv e d b y th e d is tin c tio n . See C ou ntryKi ds ’N C i t y Sl i ck s, Inc. v. Sh ee n , 77 F . 3d 1280, 1285 ( 10th C i r . 1996) . T he i de a / e xpr e s s i on di c hot om y s e e ks t o a c hi e ve a pr ope rba l a nc e be tw e e n c om pe t i ng s oc i e t a l i nt e r e s t s : tha tof e nc our a gi ng the c r e a t i on of or i gi na l w or ks on the one h a n d , a n d th a t o f

p r o m o tin g th e f

r e e f lo w o f id e a s a n d in f

o rm a tio n o n th e o th e r . See Feist , 499 U . S . a t349- 50, 111 S . C t . a t1290 ( “ [ C ] opy r i ghta s s ur e s a uthor s the r i ghtt o the i ror i gi na l e xpr e s s i on, bute nc our a ge s othe r s t o bui l d f r e e l y upon the id e a s a n d in f

o r m a tio n c o n v e y e d b y a w o rk .” ) ; ac c or d Suntr us t B ank , 26 8 F . 3d at 1 2 6 4 ; H e r z og , 193 F . 3d a t1248. T he r e f or e , “ i n de f

i ni ng pr ot e c t abl e e xpr e s s i on, the c our ts houl d ‘ ne i the rdr a w the l i ne s o na rr ow l y tha ta uthor s , c om pos e r s a nd a r tis ts w ill h a v e n o in c e n tiv e to p r o d u c e o r ig in a l lite r a ry , m u s ic a l a n d a r tis tic w or ks , nor[ s houl d the c our t ] dr a w i ts o br oa dl y tha tf utur e a uthor s , c om pos e r s a nd art i st s w i l l fi nd a di m i ni shed st ore of i deas on w hi ch t o b ui l d thei r w orks. ’ ” Me ade v. U ni ted Stat es , 2 7 F e d . C l. 3 6 7 , 3 7 2 ( F e d . C l. 1 9 9 2 ) ( a lte r a tio n in o r ig in a l) ( q u o tin g P a u l G o ld s te in , C op yr i gh t : P ri nci

pl es , L aw , an d P ract i ce § 2 .3 .1 .2 ( 1 9 8 9 ) ) , af

f’d , 5 F . 3d 15 03 (F ed. C i r. 19 93 ). I n a ddi t i on t o the i de a / e xpr e s s i on di c hot om y , c e r t a i n s t a tut ory pr ovi s i ons s pe c i f i c t o a r c hi t e c tur a l w or ks f ur the rde f

i ne the s c ope of

a va i l abl e c opy r i ght prot ec t i on . T he C op yr i gh tA ct ’ s def i ni t i on of “ ar chi t ec tural w ork” excl ud es13

“ i ndi vi dua l s t a nda r d f

e a tur e s ” f

r om the pr ot e c t i bl e e l e m e nt s of the de s i gn. 17 U . S . C . § 101. A c c or di ng t o l e gi s l a t i ve hi s t ory , s uc h f e a tur e s i nc l ude “ c om m on w i ndow s , door s , a nd othe rs t apl e bui l di ng c om pone nt s . ” H . R . R e p. N o. 101- 735 ( 1 9 9 0 ) , a s r e

p r in te d in 1 9 9 0 U .S .C .C .A .N . 6 9 3 5 , 6 9 4 9 ; se e al so T -P eg, Inc. v. V erm on t T i m ber W orks , Inc. , 459 F . 3d 97, 110 ( 1s tC i r . 2006) ( c i t i ng l e gi s l a t i ve hi s t ory ) . A tthe s a m e t i m e , how e ve r , the s t a tut e i nc l ude s w i thi n the de f i ni t i on of “a r c h ite c tu r a l w o r k ” “th e a rr a n g e m e n t a n d c o m p o s itio n o f s p a c e s a n d e le m e n ts in the desi gn . ” 17 U . S . C . § 1 01 . T hi s def i ni t i on re fl ec t s C on gres s’ s a w ar enes s that

“ c r e a t i vi ty i n a r c hi t e c tur e f r e que nt l y t a ke s the f

or m of a s e l e c t i on, c oor di na t i on, or a rr a n g e me n to f

u n p r o t e c t i b l e e l e me n t s i n t o a n o r i g i n a l , p r o t e c t i b l e w h o l e . ” H . R. R e p . N o . 1 0 1 - 7 3 5 , a s r e p r in te d in 1 9 9 0 U .S .C .C .A .N . a t 6 9 4 9 . T h u s , w h ile i ndi vi dua l s t a nda r d f

e a tur e s a nd a r c hi t e c tur a l e l e m e nt s c l a s s i f i abl e a s i de a s a r e not the m s e l ve s c opy r i ght abl e , a n a r c hi t e c t ’ s or i gi na l c om bi na t i on ora rr a nge m e ntof s u c h f e a tu r e s m a y b e . Se e C o rw in , 47 5 F . 3d at12 51 (“ [A ] w ork m aybe prot ec t ed by c opy r i ghtl a w w he n i t s othe rw i s e unpr ot e c t abl e e l e m e nt s a r e a rr a nge d i n a un i qu e w ay . ”) ; T

-P eg , 45 9 F . 3d at11 0 (no t i ng thatcom bi nat i on of i nd i vi du al st andard fea tures i n arc hi t ec tural w ork m aybe copyri gh t abl e) ; St urdza v. U ni ted A rab E m i rates , 2 8 1 F .3 d 1 2 8 7 , 1 2 9 6 (D .C . C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) ( o b se rv in g th at ar ti st’s s e l e c t i on, c oor di na t i on, a nd a rr a nge m e ntof c ol orm a y be pr ot e c t i bl e , e ve n thoughThe fir st five of theseelements a ppear in Orave c’s 1996 de sign. Theremaining 6 elements were added in the 1997 design. To illustrate our analysis, we haveattache d selec ted imag es of the de signs a s 7 appendic es to this opinion. AppendixA shows Ora vec’ s 1997 design, and AppendixB shows the Trump Palac e as c onstructed. 14 col or i t se l f i s not ). 2. C om pa rison o

f W orks O r a ve c ba s e s hi s i nf

r i nge m e ntc l a i m s on the f ol l ow i ng e l e m e nt s tha the c ont e nds a r e pr e s e nti n both hi s de s i gns a nd the T rum p B ui l di ngs : ( 1) a l t e rna t i ng c onc a ve a nd c onve x s e c t i ons ; ( 2) thr e e pr om i ne nte l e va t ors ha f t s tha tpr otrude above the r oof

of the bui l di ng; ( 3) r ounde d bui l di ng e nds ; ( 4) c ons t a ntr a di us c ur ve s ; ( 5) hol e s i n the bui l di ng; ( 6) a tw i n t ow e rde s i gn; ( 7) s e e - thr ough f l oor pl a ns ; ( 8) a c i r c ul a rpl a z a ; ( 9) a c e ntr a l f ount a i n; a nd ( 10) a r oof t op pool a nd l a nds c ape e l e m e nt s . E xa m i ni ng the s e e l e m e nt s i ndi vi dua l l y a nd c ol l e c t i ve l y , the 6 di s tr i c tc our tde t e r m i ne d tha tthe s i m i l a r i t i e s be tw e e n the O r a ve c de s i gns a nd the T rum p B ui l di ng s e xi ston l y a ta c on ce ptual l evel . A cc ordi ng l y, the court c onc l ude d tha tno r e a s onabl e j ury , pr ope r l y i ns truc t e d, c oul d f i nd the c om pe t i ng w or ks s ubs t a nt i a l l y s i m i l a rw i thouti m pl i c i t l y f i ndi ng tha tO r a ve c ow ns a c opy r i ght i n an i dea. F or the re as on s di sc usse d b el ow , w e a gree . 7 A s the di s tr i c tc our tnot e d, the ke y di s t i nc t i ve f e a tur e s of

O r a ve c ’ s de s i gns ar e thei r use of al t ernat i ng concave and conv ex se ct i on s a nd thei r use of three15

part i al l y e xp osed el evat or t ow er s e xt endi ng abov e the bu i l di ng s’ roof l i nes. W hi l e s uc h f e a tur e s a l s o a r e pr e s e nti n the T rum p B ui l di ngs , a c om pa r i s on of the w or ks r e v e a ls n u m e r o u s s ig n if ic a n t d if f e r e n c e s in th e e x p r e s s io n o f th e s e e le m e n ts . A s to the c onc a ve / c onve x c onc e pt , one r e a di l y appa r e ntdi f f e r e nc e i s the f

a c ttha tthe a l t e rna t i ng s e gm e nt s appe a ron both s i de s of O r a ve c ’ s de s i gns butonl y on one s i de of the T rum p B ui l di ng s. E ven w hen v i ew i ng the T rum p B ui l di ng s f rom thatsi de, how e ve r , s e ve r a l othe rdi s s i m i l a r i t i e s a r e e vi de nt . F ore xa m pl e , O r a ve c ’ s de s i gns c o n ta in f iv e a lte rn a tin g s e g m e n ts , w h ile th e T ru m p B u ild in g s h a v e o n ly th r e e . A ddi t i ona l l y , the s e gm e nt s i n O r a ve c ’ s de s i gns e xt e nd a c r os s the e nt i r e f a c e of the bui l di ng, w hi l e thos e i n the T rum p B ui l di ngs appe a ronl y i n the m i ddl e por t i on betw ee n the tw o o ut erel evat or t ow er s. In O ra vec’ s des i gn s, these se gm ent s a re l ong a nd na rr ow , a nd e a c h s e gm e nti s pl a c e d on one s i de of the thr e e e l e va t or t ow e r s s o a s t o c r e a t e a voi d thr oughoutthe ve r t i c a l c e nt e rof the bui l di ng. I n the T rum p B ui l di ng s, the se gm ent s app ea r onl y on the fa ça de of the bu i l di ng , and there i s n o v ert i cal v o i d creat ed . T h ese d i fferen ces are reflect ed i n th e b u i l d i n g s’ re spec t i ve fl oo r pl ans. O ra vec’ s 199 7 d es i gn m ea sure s 320 fe etl on g and 42 fe et w i de , a nd the e nt i r e f

l oorpl a n ha s a pr onounc e d, “ ba na na - s hape d” c ur ve t o i t . T he T rum p B ui l di ngs ha ve a m or e r e c t i l i ne a rs hape , m e a s ur i ng 260 f e e tl ong a nd 72 feetw i d e atth ei r n arro w estp o i n t s.16

T h e e x p re ss io n o f th e e lev ato r to w er s a lso d iffe rs sig n ifican tl y. O ra v ec ’s e l e va t ort ow e r s a r e f

r e e - s t a ndi ng a nd a r e l oc a t e d w i thi n the s pa c e c r e a t e d by the al t ern at i n g co n v ex an d co n cav e sect i o n s o f th e b u i l d i n g . T h e T ru m p B u i l d i n g s’ e l e va t ort ow e r s a r e l oc a t e d w i thi n the s ol i d s truc tur e of the bui l di ng. I n a ddi t i on, i n O ra vec’ s des i gn s, a vi ew erca n see on l y c ert ai n sec t i on s of the el evat or t ow er s be c a us e the y a r e pa r t i a l l y obs truc t e d by the a l t e rna t i ng c onve x a nd c onc a ve s e c t i o n s . I n th e T ru m p B u i l d i n g s , th e v i e we rc a n s e e th e e x t e r i o r s o f th e o u t e rtwo e le v a to rto w e r s th r o u g h th e e n tir e le n g th o f th e b u ild in g ; o n ly th e c e n te rto w e ris p ar ti ally o b sc u re d . T h e to w er s a lso d iffe r in sh ap e a n d o rien tati o n . O ra v ec ’s el evat or t ow er s a re cy l i nd ri ca l , w hi l e tho se i n the T rum p B ui l di ng s a re ov al s. In O r a ve c ’ s de s i gns , the t ow e r s a r e c l us t e r e d i n the c e nt e rof the bui l di ng, a nd the m i ddl e t ow e ri s thi c ke rtha n the tw o out e rtw o. T he t ow e r s i n the T rum p B ui l di ngs ar e s prea d o utevenl y, and al l three ar e e qu al i n d i am et er . F urther, the tw o o ut er to w e r s in th e T ru m p B u ild in g s “a r e a n g le d in w a r d s o th a t th e le a d in g e d g e o f a ll three t ow er s ori entt ow ar d a focal po i ntou t si de the bu i l di ng . ” O r av e c v . Sunny I s l e s Lu x u r

y Ve n tu r e s L. C. , 46 9 F . S up p. 2d 11 48 , 11 70 (S . D . F l a. 20 06 ). G i ven th atO rav ec’ s t o w ers are cyli n d ri cal , th i s featu re i s ab sen ti n h i s d esi g n s. F i n al l y, the t ops of

the T rum p B ui l di ngs ’ t ow e r s a r e s l ope d s o a s t o gi ve the e f f e c tof sm o k est ack s o n a cru i se sh i p . T h e t o w ers i n O rav ec’ s d esi g n s are h o ri zo n t al acro ss17

the t op. T he r e m a i ni ng e l e m e nt s i de nt i f i e d byO r a ve c — the us e of r ounde d bui l di ng e nds , a c ons t a ntr a di us on i ndi vi dua l f l oorpl a ns , hol e s i n the bui l di ng, a tw i nt ow e rde s i gn, “ s e e - thr ough” uni t s , a c i r c ul a rpl a z a , a c e ntr a l f ount a i n, a nd a r oof

t op po ol w i th l andscape el em ent s— ar e bes tchar ac t er i ze d as e i ther i nd i vi du al st andard f e a tu r e s o rid e a s . C

f. S tu rd za , 2 8 1 F . 3 d at1 2 9 7 (“ In an d o f th em sel v es, d o m es, w i nd -t ow er s, parapet s, and arches re pres enti deas , no texpres si on . ”) . W e a gree w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u r t th a t th e e x p r e s s io n o f th e s e e le m e n ts in th e O r a v e c d e s ig n s is no tsubst ant i al l y s i m i l art o thei r e xp re ss i on i n the T rum p B ui l di ng s. F or exam pl e, i n O ra vec’ s des i gn s, the tw i n t ow erconcepti s e xp re ss ed such thati tappears that one bui l di ng c oul d f

i ti nt o the othe r ; the T rum p B ui l di ngs l a c k thi s f e a tur e . T he h o le s in th e b u ild in g s a ls o d if f e rs ig n if ic a n tly . A s n o te d , O r a v e c ’s d e s ig n s c o n ta in a s pa c e f r om the gr ound thr ough the t op of the bui l di ng. T he T rum p B ui l di ngs h av e o n ly a s m all h o rizo n tal g ap . A s to th e r o u n d ed b u il d in g en d s, O ra v ec ’s d e s ig n s h a v e f

u ll w r ap - a r o u n d te rr a c e s , w h ic h c r e a te a v is u a lly s m o o th f a ç a d e . T he T rum p B ui l di ng s have i nd i vi du al bal coni es , cr ea t i ng a m ore j agged ap p earan ce i n th e ro u n d ed en d s. W i th res pectt o the ci rc ul arpl az as , the di stri ctcourtprop er l y f ou nd that the s e e l e m e nt s a r e nots ubs t a nt i a l l y s i m i l a rbe c a us e O r a ve c ’ s pl a z a l a c ks the18

i ntr i c a t e de t a i l s e xpr e s s e d i n tha tof the T rum p B ui l di ngs . T he s a m e c onc l us i on appl i e s t o the us e of

a c i r c ul a rf

ount a i n i n e a c h de s i gn. A s t o the c ons t a ntr a di us c u r v e s a n d “s e e - th r o u g h ” f lo o rp la n s , w e h a v e a lr e a d y n o te d th a t th e f lo o rp la n s in the re spec t i ve desi gn s di ff erdram at i ca l l y. F i nal l y, O ra vec poi nt s t o h i s use of a r oof t op pool w i th l a nds c ape e l e m e nt s . H ow e ve r , the T rum p B ui l di ngs do notha ve a r oof t op pool , a nd the l a nds c ape e l e m e nt s i n thos e bui l di ngs a r e nots i m i l a rt o a ny s u c h f e a tu r e s th a t a r e d is c e rn ib le in O r a v e c ’s d e s ig n s . T hese di ff

er ence s, as w el l as others , prec l ud e afi nd i ng of subst ant i al si m i l ar i ty. W hi l e i ti s true thatO ra vec’ s des i gn s a nd the T rum p B ui l di ng s have a n u m b er o f featu res i n co m m o n , th o se el em en t s are si m i l ar o n l y atth e b ro ad est l evel of general i ty. A tthe l evel of prot ec t ed express i on , the di ff er ence s betw ee n the de s i gns a r e s o s i gni f i c a nttha tno r e a s onabl e , pr ope r l y i ns truc t e d j ury c oul d f i nd the w or ks s ubs t a nt i a l l y s i m i l a r . A s the di s tr i c tc our tobs e rve d, t o c onc l ude otherw i se w ou l d requi re a f i nd i ng thatO ra vec ow ns a c op yr i gh ti n the conceptof a conv ex/ concave formu l a or i n thatof usi ng three ext ernal el evat or t ow er s that e xt e nd above the r oof

of a bui l di ng. S uc h a c onc l us i on w oul d e xt e nd the p r o te c tio n s o f

c o p y r ig h t la w w e ll b e y o n d th e irp r o p e rs c o p e . C f. A le H o u s e M g m t. v. R al ei gh A l e H ou se, Inc. , 205 F . 3d 137, 143 ( 4th C i r . 2000) ( a f f i rm i ng gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e nton c l a i m tha tde f e nda ntc opi e d pl a i nt i f

f’ s us e of “ a n i s l a nd or19

pe ni ns ul a - s hape d ba rt o bi s e c ta s e a t i ng a r e a w hi c h ha s booths on one s i de a nd s t ool s e a t i ng on the othe r , ” be c a us e , “ a tthi s l e ve l of ge ne r a l i ty , [ pl a i nt i f

f’ s ] de s i gn is n o th in g m o r e th a n a c o n c e p t” ) ; W i c kham v . Knox v i l l e I

nt ’ l E ne r gy E x pos i t i on, Inc. , 739 F . 2d 1094, 1097 ( 6th C i r . 1984) ( a f f i rm i ng gr a ntof

s um m a ry j udgm e nt on c l a i m tha tde f

e nda nti nf

r i nge d pl a i nt i f

f’ s a r c hi t e c tur a l de s i gns be c a us e “ [ t ] he

‘ i dea’ of a t ow erstructure c ert ai nl y i s notcopyri gh t abl e” ). F o r si m i l ar reaso n s, w e al so rej ectO rav ec’ s arg u m en tth ath e can est ab l i sh su b st an t i al si m i l ari ty o n th e b asi s o f h i s sel ect i o n o f d esi g n el em en t s. In O ra v ec ’s vi e w , the f

a c ttha tthe s a m e c om bi na t i on of e l e m e nt s appe a r s i n both hi s de s i gns a n d th e T ru m p B u ild in g s s h o u ld h a v e p r e c lu d e d s u m m a ryju d g m e n t, no tw i thst andi ng the di ff er ence s i n the expres si on of tho se el em ent s. H ow ever , w h ile it is c le a rth a t a n a r c h ite c t’s o r ig in a l s e le c tio n o rc o m b in a tio n o f e le m e n ts c a n w a rr a n t c o p y r ig h t p r o te c tio n , s e e C o rw in , 4 7 5 F .3 d a t 1 2 5 1 ; T -P eg , 45 9 F . 3d at 11 5, the se l ec t i on thatO ra vec i s s ee ki ng t o p rot ec ti s t oo general i ze d t o q ual i fyas pr ot e c t e d e xpr e s s i on. T he c opy r i ghtc l a i m e d by O r a ve c w oul d e nc om pa s s a ny bui l di ng tha tc om bi ne d a c onc a ve / c onve x s truc tur e , thr e e e xt e rna l a nd pr otrudi ng el ev at o r t o w ers, an d v ari o u s co m m o n b u i l d i n g featu res, h o w ev er an y o f th ese e le m e n ts m ig h t b e e x p r e s s e d . W e r e w e to g r a n t h im s u c h a r ig h t, w e w o u ld e f f e c t i ve l y ba ra l l othe ra r c hi t e c t s f r om i nc orpor a t i ng the s e c onc e pt s i nt o ne w a ndSee, e .g. , Imperial Homes Corp. v. Lamont , 458 F.2d 895, 899 ( 5th Cir. 1972) 8 (copy righted architectural plans do not confer exclusive right to reproduc e the depicted building); Nat ’l

Med. Care, I

nc . v. E sp iri tu , 2 8 4 F . Su

p p . 2 d 4 2 4 , 4 3 5 ( S. D . W. V a . 2 0 0 3 ) ( “ [A ]n

(continued...) 20 o r ig in a l d e s ig n s . T h a t r e s u lt w o u ld le a d to “a d im in is h e d s to r e o f id e a s ” a v a ilab le f o rf u tu r e w o r k s , Me ade , 27 F e d. C l . a t372, a nd thus w oul d be c ontr a ry t o the f u n d a m e n ta l p u rp o s e s o f c o p y r ig h t la w . See Feist , 4 9 9 U .S . a t 3 4 9 - 5 0 , 1 1 1 S . C t. a t1290. A c c or di ngl y , w e a f

f i r m the gr a ntof

s um m a ry j udgm e nta s t o O r a ve c ’ s 1996 an d 1 9 9 7 C o p yri g h t s. C . M ar c h 2004 C opy r i

ght

“ [ T ] he hol de rof

a c opy r i ghti n a n a r c hi t e c tur a l pl a n . . . ha s tw o f orm s of p r o te c tio n , o n e u n d e rth e p r o v is io n f o ra n ‘a r c h ite c tu r a l w o rk ’ u n d e r1 7 U .S .C . § 10 2(a) (8), and ano ther und erthe prov i si on for a‘ pi ct ori al , graphi ca l , or sc ul ptural w ork’ un der 17 U . S . C . § 1 02 (a )( 5). ” T -P eg , 45 9 F . 3d at10 9-10 . A s not ed, O ra vec re gi st er ed hi s M ar ch 20 04 m at er i al s a s P G S w orks ra ther than as a rc hi t ec tural w or ks . T he di s tr i c tc our the l d tha tO r a ve c c oul d note s t abl i s h i nf r i nge m e ntof these w orks becaus e, un l i ke an arc hi t ec tural w ork cop yr i gh t , a P G S copyri gh tdo es no tprot ec tagai nstthe construct i on of a bui l di ng base d o n cop yr i gh t ed ar chi t ec tural pl ans; i ton l y prohi bi t s c op yi ng of the pl ans them se l ves. O ra vec does n o t c h a lle n g e th is le g a l c o n c lu s io n , f o rw h ic h th e r e is a m p le s u p p o r t. I ns t e a d, he 8(...continued) 8 as-built structureor fe aturecannot bean infring ing c opy of a te chnical drawing .”); Deme triades v. Kaufmann , 680 F. Supp. 658, 664 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (“[A]lthough an owner of c opy righted architectural plans is granted the right to prevent the unauthorized copying of those plans, that indivi du al . . . doe s n ot obtain a prote c ta bleintere st in th eus e ful artic ledepic te d b y tho se plans.”); see also 1 Melville V. Nimmer &David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 2.08[D] [2] [a] , at 2-123 to 2-124 ( 2007) (notingthat preponderanc e of a uthority has denie d liability for c onstruction based on c opy righted plans absent a sepa rateact of infring ement). Several of these c ases were de cided prior to the enactment of the Architec tural Works Copy right Prote c tio n A c t ( “ AWCP A” ), whic h e xtende d c op y ri ght p ro te c tio n to“ archite c tural w or ks ”a s a new c ateg ory

of authorship. Se eEs

piritu , 284 F. Supp. 2d at 434. However, the scopeof copy right protection for

architectural plans reg istered under § 102(a)(5)was una ffe cted by the AWCP A. See T-Pe

g , 459 F.3d at 109. 21 a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d b y r e f u s in g to e x e r c is e ju r is d ic tio n o v e rh is cl ai m s und erthe so-c al l ed “ ef fe ct i ve re gi stra t i on ” doctri ne. T he C opy r i ghtA c tpr ovi de s tha t“ no a c t i on f ori nf r i nge m e nt. . . s ha l l be i ns t i tut e d unt i l pr e r e gi s tr a t i on orr e gi s tr a t i on of the c opy r i ghtc l a i m ha s be e n m a de in a c c o r d a n c e w ith th is title .” 1 7 U .S .C . § 4 1 1 ( a ) . T h is r e g is tr a tio n r e q u ir e m e n t is a ju r is d ic tio n a l p r e r e q u is ite to a n in f r in g e m e n t a c tio n . M. G . B . H om es , Inc. v. A m er on H

om es , Inc. , 9 0 3 F . 2 d 1 4 8 6 , 1 4 8 8 & n . 4 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 0 ). O rav ec n o t es, how e ve r , tha tc our t s ha ve e s c he w e d s tr i c tappl i c a t i on of the r e gi s tr a t i on r e qui r e m e nti n c a s e s w he r e a pa r ty ow ns both a pr e - e xi s t i ng w or k a nd a de r i va t i ve w or k tha ti nc orpor a t e s e l e m e nt s of the or i gi na l . I n s uc h c a s e s , the r e gi s tr a t i on of the de r i va t i ve w or k ha s be e n de e m e d s uf f i c i e ntt o pe rm i ta c l a i m ba s e d on the unde r l y i ng w or k, e ve n i f tha tw ork w a s notr e gi s t e r e d. O ra vec di re ct s our att ent i on t o sever al ca se s i n w hi ch court s have e xerc i se d22

ju r is d ic tio n o n th e b a s is o f th is e f f e c tiv e r e g is tr a tio n p r in c ip le . F o re x a m p le , in Stre etw ise M

ap s, Inc. v. V

an D am , Inc. , 15 9 F . 3d 73 9 (2d C i r. 19 98 ), the pu bl i sher o f a s tr e e t m ap o f

N e w Y o r k C ity b r o u g h t a n in f r in g e m e n t a c tio n a g a in s t a c om pe t i t or . T he r e gi s tr a t i on c e r t i f i c a t e r e l i e d upon by the pl a i nt i f f s t a t e d tha tthe c opy r i ght e d w or k w a s de r i va t i ve of a “ S tr e e tw i s e M a nha tt a n m ap c a rry i ng a copyri gh tno t i ce dat e of 198 4, 19 85 . ” I d. a t 7 4 6 ( q u o tin g r e g is tr a tio n c e r tif ic a te ) . T h e la te rm ap a d d e d s u b w a y a n d b u s n o ta tio n s to th e o r ig in a l. T h e d e f e n d a n ts a r gue d the r e gi s tr a t i on c e r t i f i c a t e c ove r e d onl y thos e a ddi t i ons , a nd tha tthe a c t i on th e r e f o r e c o u ld n o t b e s u s ta in e d ab s e n t as e p a r a te r e g is tr a tio n f o rth e e a r lie rm ap . T h e c o u r t d is a g r e e d , h o ld in g th a t, b e c a u s e th e p la in tif f o w n e d th e c o p y r ig h t in b o th m ap s , “th e r e g is tr a tio n c e r tif ic a te r e la tin g to th e d e r iv a tiv e w o rk . . . w ill s u f f ic e to pe r m i ti tt o m a i nt a i n a n a c t i on f ori nf r i nge m e ntba s e d on de f e nda nt s ’ i nf

r i nge m e nt of the pre-e xi st i ng w ork. ” I d. a t 7 4 7 . Se e al

s o, e . g. , Murray Hi l l

P ub l ’ns, Inc. v. A B CC om m c’ ns, Inc. , 26 4 F . 3d 62 2, 63 1 (6th C i r. 20 01 ) ( ac kn ow l edgi ng “ ca se s thatperm i ti nfri ng em entsui t s t o p roce ed on re gi st er ed deri vat i ve w orks even tho ug h som e of the un derl yi ng foun dat i on al w orks w er e notform al l y r egi st er ed”) ; I n r e I nde p. Se r v . O r

gs . A nt i tr us t

L i t i g. , 964 F . S upp. 1469, 1473 ( D . K a n. 1997) ( hol di ng tha tr e gi s tr a t i on of de r i va t i ve s e rvi c e m a nua l s a nd s of tw a r e w a s s uf

f i c i e nt t o al l ow i nfri ng em entcl ai m base d o n p re exi st i ng w orks autho re d b y s am e party) ;23

G re enw i ch F i lm P rods. v. D R G R ec ords, Inc. , 8 3 3 F . S u p p . 2 4 8 , 2 5 1 - 5 2 ( S . D. N. Y. 19 93 ) ( ho l di ng thatre gi stra t i on for m ot i on pi cture w as suff i ci entt o cov erm usi ca l c o m p o s itio n s c o n ta in e d th e r e in w h e r e p la in tif f o w n e d c o p y r ig h ts in b o th ) ; 2 N im m e r& N im m e r , su

p ra , § 7 .1 6 [ B ][ 2 ][ c ], a t 7 - 1 7 4 ( “[ W ]h e n th e s a m e p a r ty ow ns the deri vat i ve or col l ec t i ve w ork p l us the un derl yi ng el em ent s i ncorpo ra t ed the r e i n, i t s r e gi s tr a t i on of the f or m e ri s ‘ s uf

f i c i e ntt o pe rm i ta n i nf

r i nge m e nta c t i on on the unde r l y i ng pa r t s , w he the rthe y be ne w orpr e e xi s t i ng. ’ ” ( quot i ng X oo m , Inc. v. Im ag el i ne, Inc. , 32 3 F . 3d 27 9, 28 4 (4th C i r. 20 03 )) ). O r a ve c a r gue s tha tthe e f f e c t i ve r e gi s tr a t i on doc tr i ne i s appl i c abl e t o the f a c t s of thi s c a s e . H e c ont e nds tha t , be c a us e he ow ns the a r c hi t e c tur a l w or ks d e p ic te d in h is M a r c h 2 0 0 4 m a te r ia ls , th e M a r c h 2 0 0 4 C o p y r ig h t e f f e c tiv e ly r e g is te r e d th o s e p r io rw o r k s . T h e r e f o r e , h e a r g u e s , th e w o rk s n e e d n o t b e f o rm a lly r e gi s t e r e d a s a r c hi t e c tur a l w or ks i n or de rt o r e c e i ve pr ot e c t i on a s s uc h. Or a v e c ’ s r e l i a n c e o n th e e f f e c t i v e r e g i s tr a t i o n d o c tr i n e i s m i s p l a c e d . As i ndi c a t e d, the c a s e s appl y i ng tha tpr i nc i pl e i nvol ve d de r i va t i ve orc ol l e c t i ve w or ks th at in co rp o ra ted m ater ial fro m u n re g istere d p re ex isti n g w o rk s. H er e, O ra v ec ’s M a r c h 2004 r e gi s tr a t i on c e r t i f i c a t e doe s noti de nt i f

y a ny unr e gi s t e r e d pr e e xi s t i ng w or ks . I n f

a c t , on the por t i on of

the c e rt i f

i c a t e c a l l i ng f

orthe i de nt i f

i c a t i on of p r e e x is tin g m a te r ia l, O r a v e c lis te d o n ly h is 1 9 9 6 , 1 9 9 7 , a n d 2 0 0 2 C o p y r ig h ts

— i.e .,24

r e gi s t e r e d w or ks . O r a ve c obvi ous l y doe s notne e d t o r e l y on the e f f e c t i ve re gi stra t i on do ctri ne t o ass ertcl ai m s bas ed on tho se desi gn s. N ow , ho w ever , O ra vec app ea rs t o b e a rgui ng thatthe re l evant“ pree xi st i ng ” w orks ar e the three d im e n s io n a l m o d e ls r e g is te r e d b y th e M a r c h 2 0 0 4 C o p y r ig h t its e lf . A c c o r d in g to O ra vec, these w orks ar e pre exi st i ng because the ph ot og raph s a nd com pu t er re nd er i ng s thatw er e r egi st er ed atthe sa m e t i m e depi ctthe m od el s, and thu s a re de r i va t i ve w or ks . T ha ti nt e rpr e t a t i on, how e ve r , i s notappa r e ntf r om the r e gi s tr a t i on c e r t i f

i c a t e , w hi c h m a ke s no di s t i nc t i on be tw e e n the m ode l s a nd the othe rr e gi s t e r e d m a t e r i a l s . I tm e r e l y i ndi c a t e s tha tthe m ode l s , phot ogr aphs , a nd ren d eri n g s are d eri v at i v e o f O rav ec’ s th ree p rev i o u sl y reg i st ered d esi g n s. A tl ea ston e other c ou rthas f ou nd subj ec tm att erj uri sdi ct i on l ac ki ng w here the r e gi s tr a t i on c e r t i f

i c a t e r e l i e d upon by the pl a i nt i f f di d notpr ope r l y i de nt i f y the pr e e xi s t i ng w or k upon w hi c h the i nf r i nge m e ntc l a i m w a s ba s e d. I n I. M. S. In q u i ry M an ag em ent

System s, L td. v. B erks hi re Inf orm at i on System s, Inc. , 307 F . S upp. 2d 521 ( S . D . N . Y . 2004) , the pl a i nt i f f a l l e ge d tha tthe de f

e nda ntc opi e d m a t e r i a l f r om its w e b s ite . T h e in f

o r m a tio n p r o v id e d o n th e p la in tif f’s r e g is tr a tio n c e r tif

ic a te i ndi c a t e d tha tthe pr ot e c t e d w or k w a s c om pl e t e d a nd f i r s tpubl i s he d a f

t e rthe copyi ng w as al l eged t o h ave occurr ed. T he pl ai nt i ff cont ended thatthe i nfri ng ed w ork w as pree xi st i ng m att er , and thatthere fore the re gi stra t i on of the l att erw ork25

e x te n d e d to th e e a r lie rm a te r ia l, w h ic h th e p la in tif f a ls o o w n e d . Se e i d. a t528. T he c our tr e

j e c t e d thi s a r gum e nt , f

i ndi ng tha t“ the por t i on of the R e g is tr a tio n C e r tif

ic a te r e q u ir in g th e id e n tif ic a tio n o f

‘P r e e x is tin g M a te r ia l’ w o u ld have t o ref

ert o the preexi st i ng m att erthati s the basi s of thi s i nfri ng em entac t i on . ” I d. a t529. I n the c our t ’ s vi e w , the pl a i nt i f f’ s f a i l ur e t o pr ovi de s uc h i nf orm a t i on d i s t i n g u i s h e d th e c a s e f

r o m Str e e tw is e M

aps , w here the preexi st i ng w ork w as id e n tif ie d o n th e r e g is tr a tio n c e r tif ic a te f o rth e d e r iv a tiv e w o rk . Id . I n I . M. S. , by contra st , there w as no i nd i ca t i on thatthe pl ai nt i ff’ s r egi stra t i on covered the w ork at i ss ue i n the sui t , apartfr om the pl ai nt i ff’ s “ curr entprot es t at i on s t o [that ] ef fe ct . ” I d. T he courtfoun d such ass ert i on s i nsuffi ci entt o est abl i sh subj ec tm att er ju r is d ic tio n . I

d. W e f i nd the I . M. S. c our t ’ s r e a s oni ng pe r s ua s i ve a nd appl i c abl e t o the f a c t s of thi s c as e. W i th the except i on of hi s three pri or re gi st er ed desi gn s, O ra vec’ s M ar ch 2004 r e gi s tr a t i on c e r t i f

i c a t e doe s noti de nt i f

y a ny pr e e xi s t i ng a r c hi t e c tur a l w orks th a t th e r e g is te r e d m a te r ia ls a r e b a s e d o n o rin c o rp o r a te . See 17 U . S . C . § 409( 9) (provi di ng thatappl i ca t i on for c op yr i gh tre gi stra t i on shal l i ncl ud e, “ i n the ca se of a c om pi l a t i on orde r i va t i ve w or k, a n i de nt i f i c a t i on of

a ny pr e e xi s t i ng w ork orw or ks tha ti ti s ba s e d on ori nc orpor a t e s ” ) . I n pa r t i c ul a r , the c e r t i f i c a t e gi ve s no i nd i ca t i on thatO ra vec w as att em pt i ng t o cl ai m se para t e prot ec t i on for hi s three -Our c onclusion is not altered by the statement that Oravecprovided on the reg istration 9 c ertif ic ateun der t

hesu bh e a ding“ Materi al A dde d toThis Wo rk” : “ This m ateri al in c lude s all previous designs and ver sions and depict [sic] them in 3-D models/photographs, rendering s . . . .” This statement is insufficient for ef fec tive registration purposes, as it does not indicatewhat specificpreex isting works ( other than thethreeregistered de signs) arebeingref erenced. See17 U. S . C . § 1 0 1 (d ef

i n i n g “arc h i t ec tura lwo rk ” a s “th e d es i gno f ab ui l di n g as embodied in any tangible medium of ex

pression ”) ( emphasis adde d) . Th estatement c ertainly do e s n ot sug g e st that th ethre e -dimens ion al mo de ls a rethemse lve s th epre e xistingwo rk s.

26 di m e ns i ona l m ode l s a s pr e e xi s t i ng a r c hi t e c tur a l w orks . O r a ve c ’ s “ c urr e nt pr ot e s t a t i ons ” tha tthe m ode l s s houl d be tr e a t e d a s s uc h c a nnots a t i s f y the r e g is tr a tio n r e q u ir e m e n t o f § 4 1 1 ( a ) . Se e I

. M. S. , 307 F . S upp. 2d a t529. 9 M oreover, even as sum i ng thatO ra vec c re at ed preexi st i ng ar chi t ec tural w or ks , he i s a tt e m pt i ng t o s ue on a n a s pe c tof thos e w or ks

— the r i ghtt o pr e ve nt c o n s tru c t i o n o f

b u i l d i n g s e m b o d y i n g h i s d e s i g n — th a ti s n o ti n c l u d e d i n th e P GS w or k he di d r e gi s t e r . A s di s c us s e d, c our t s r e c ogni z i ng the e f f e c t i ve r e gi s tr a t i on doc tr i ne ha ve he l d tha tthe r e gi s tr a t i on of a de r i va t i ve w or k s a t i s f i e s the re gi stra t i on re qu i re m entfor a l l as pect s of the register ed w o rk , e v e n th e a s p e c ts c o p ie d f r o m a n u n r e g is te r e d p r e e x is tin g w o rk , s o lo n g a s th e o w n e ro f b o th c o p y r ig h ts is th e s a m e . Se e , e . g. , Str e e tw is e M aps , 1 5 9 F .3 d a t 7 4 7 . B u t th is theory onl y app l i es t o aspec t s of the un derl yi ng w ork thatar e a ctual l y i ncorpo ra t ed in to th e r e g is te r e d w o r k . See 2 N im m e r& N im m e r , su p ra , § 7. 16[ B ] [ 2] [ c ] , a t7- 17 3 n . 10 5. 7 (“ T he as sum pt i on i s thatthe deri vat i ve w ork thati s r egi st er ed e m b o d ie s a ll th e f

e a tu r e s o f

th e u n d e r ly in g w o rk o n w h ic h s u it is p r e m is e d .” ) . A27

pl a i nt i f f c a nnotus e a n e f

f e c t i ve r e gi s tr a t i on the ory t o s ue on a s pe c t s of un re gi st er ed preexi st i ng w orks thatar e noti ncl ud ed i n the w ork h e di d regi st er . B utthati s e xact l y w hatO ra vec i s a tt em pt i ng t o d o h er e by s ee ki ng dam ages f orthe c ons truc t i on of

the T rum p B ui l di ngs . A s not e d, a P G S c opy r i ghtc a nnotbe i nfri ng ed by an as -bui l tstructure. T hu s, even as sum i ng O ra vec has un re gi st er ed p r e e x is tin g a r c h ite c tu r a l w o r k s c o p y r ig h ts in th e a r c h ite c tu r a l d e s ig n s e m b o d ie d in the M a r c h 2004 C opy r i ght , the r i ghtt o pr e ve ntthe c ons truc t i on of bui l di ngs m i rr or i ng thos e de s i gns i s a n a s pe c tof thos e pr e e xi s t i ng a r c hi t e c tur a l w orks c o p y r i g h t s th a tc a n n o tb e ( a n d th u s wa s n o t ) i n c o rp o r a t e d i n t o h i s Ma r c h 2 0 0 4 P GS C opy r i ght . T hus , O r a ve c s e e ks t o s ue on a n a s pe c tof a n unr e gi s t e r e d unde r l y i ng w or k tha ti s noti nc orpor a t e d i nt o the de r i va t i ve w ork he di d r e gi s t e r . T he e f f e c t i ve re gi stra t i on do ctri ne ca nn otbe stre t ched thatfa r. A c c o r d in g ly , w e h o ld th a t O r a v e c ’s M a r c h 2 0 0 4 C o p y r ig h t d o e s n o t e n title h im to c la im a r c h ite c tu r a l w o r k p r o te c tio n f o rh is r e g is te r e d P G S w o rk s . W e a f f irm th e g r a n t o f

s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t a s to th e M a r c h 2 0 0 4 C o p y r ig h t. D . Mot i on to A m e nd C om plai nt F in a lly , O r a v e c a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in d e n y in g h im le a v e to a m e n d h i s c o m p l a i n tt o c o rr e c tth e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l d e f e c ta r i s i n g f

r o m th e P GS c opy r i ghtr e gi s tr a t i on. H e c ont e nds tha tthe c our ts houl d ha ve gr a nt e d hi s m ot i on28

be c a us e the r e w a s no undue de l a y a nd be c a us e the e xc l us i on of the M a r c h 2004 c l a i m s r e s ul t s i n i nj us t i c e . A l t e rna t i ve l y , O r a ve c a r gue s tha ta m e ndm e ntof the com pl ai ntw as un nece ss ary bec ause hi s r egi stra t i on of the m at er i al s a s a rc hi t ec tural w o r k s in J u ly 2 0 0 6 c u r e d a n y ju r is d ic tio n a l d e f e c t. W e “w ill o n ly r e v e r s e a d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f a m o tio n to a m e n d in i nst ance s i n w hi ch the di stri ctcourthas c l ea rl y abu se d i t s di sc re t i on . ” H enson v. C olum bus B ank

& T r us t C o. , 7 7 0 F .2 d 1 5 6 6 , 1 5 7 4 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 8 5 ). O ra v ec ’s ar gu m enton appeal focuse s pri m ar i l y on est abl i shi ng thatl ea ve t o am end w as w a rr a nt e d unde rF e d. R . C i v. P . 15( a ) . H ow e ve r , be c a us e O r a ve c f i l e d hi s m ot i on aft er th e sch ed u l i n g o rd er’ s d ead l i n e fo r su ch m o t i o n s, h e “ m u stsh o w g o o d cau se w hy l ea ve t o am end the com pl ai ntshou l d b e gra nt ed. ” Sm i th v . Sc h. B d. of O r ange C o u n ty , 4 8 7 F .3 d 1 3 6 1 , 1 3 6 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) , pet i t i on f or ce rt. f i l ed , ( U .S . O c t. 2 2 , 2 0 0 7 ) ( N o . 0 7 - 1 2 2 8 ) ; see a l so F e d . R . C iv . P . 1 6 ( b ) ; B r e w e r - G io r g io v. P rodu ce rs V

i deo, Inc. , 2 1 6 F . 3 d 1 2 8 1 , 1 2 8 4 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 0 ) (fi n d i n g n o ab u se of di sc re t i on i n d i stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of l ea ve t o am end o n g roun ds of un du e del ay w h e r e m o v a n t f

a ile d to s h o w g o o d c a u s e f o rd e la y ) ; So sa v. A i rpri ntSys. , Inc. , 133 F . 3d 14 17 , 14 19 (11th C i r. 19 98 ) ( per c uri am ) ( “ If w e c on si dere d o nl y R ul e 15(a) w i thoutr e ga r d t o R ul e 16( b) , w e w oul d r e nde rs c he dul i ng or de r s m e a ni ngl e s s a nd e f f e c t i ve l y w oul d r e a d R ul e 16( b) a nd i t s good c a us e r e qui r e m e ntoutof the29

F eder al R ul es of C i vi l P roce du re . ”) . W e have re cogn i ze d thatR ul e 16(a) ’ s goo d cause st andard “ prec l ud es m o d if ic a tio n [ o f

th e s c h e d u lin g o r d e r ] u n le s s th e s c h e d u le c a n n o t b e m e t d e s p ite the di l i gence of the party s ee ki ng the ext ensi on . ” See So sa , 133 F . 3d a t1418 ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a r k s o m itte d ) ; see a l so Jo h n so n v. M

a m m o th R ecrea t i o n s, I n c ., 975 F . 2d 604, 609 ( 9th C i r . 1992) ( “ I f [ a ] pa r ty w a s notdi l i ge nt , the [ good c a us e ] i nqui ry s houl d e nd. ” ) . H e r e , O r a ve c di d nots how the r e qui s i t e l e ve l of di l i ge nc e i n pur s ui ng hi s c l a i m s . H e f i l e d hi s m ot i on t o a m e nd on J ul y 12, 2006, ove rtw e nty m onths a f

t e rf i l i ng the or i gi na l c om pl a i nt , m or e tha n a y e a ra f t e rthe expi ra t i on of the deadl i ne for a m endi ng the pl ea di ng s, and o nl y s i x w ee ks before tr i a l . O r a ve c a r gue s tha the l a c ke d not i c e of the j ur i s di c t i ona l c onc e rn r e ga r di ng h i s PG S c o p y r i g h t s u n t i l th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti n d i c a t e d o n J u l y 7 th a tth o s e c l a i ms coul d n otbe m ai nt ai ned. H ow ever , the fa ctthatO ra vec or hi s c ou nsel m i s unde r s t ood the s c ope of l e ga l pr ot e c t i on a va i l abl e f orP G S w or ks doe s not co n st i tu t e g o o dcau se. In an y ev en t , O rav ec w as aw are o f th e d efen d an t s’ c ha l l e nge t o hi s M a r c h 2004 C opy r i ghtc l a i m s i nc e a tl e a s tA pr i l 2006, w he n the defe nd ant s f

i l ed thei r m ot i on for s um m ary j ud gm ent . H e non ethel es s w ai t ed an a ddi t i ona l thr e e m onths t o f i l e a ddi t i ona l c opy r i ghtr e gi s tr a t i ons a nd t o s e e k l e a ve t o a m e nd. U nde rthe s e c i r c um s t a nc e s , the di s tr i c tc our ta c t e d w i thi n i t s di s c r e t i on30

i n de ny i ng hi s m ot i on. O r a ve c ’ s a l t e rna t i ve a r gum e nttha thi s r e gi s tr a t i on of the M a r c h 2004 m a t e r i a l s a s a r c hi t e c tur a l w or ks e l i m i na t e d the ne e d t o a m e nd hi s c om pl a i nt l i ke w i s e i s w i thoutm e r i t . O r a ve c r e l i e s on P osi t i ve B lack T alk I nc. v. C ash Mon ey R ec ords, Inc. , 39 4 F . 3d 35 7 (5th C i r. 20 04 ), i n w hi ch the pl ai nt i ff fi l ed an in fr in g em en t actio n b ef o re th e C o p yr ig h t O ff

ice h ad re ce iv ed th e p lain ti ff’s copyri gh tre gi stra t i on m at er i al s. T he courthel d thatthi s j uri sdi ct i on al defe ctw as cure d w hen the m at er i al s w er e r ec ei ved, even tho ug h the pl ai nt i ff di d n otfi l e a s u p p le m e n ta l c o m p la in t. I d. a t 3 6 6 - 6 7 . P osi t i ve B lack T alk i s i napp osi t e, h o w e v e r , b e c a u s e i n th a tc a s e th e p l a i n t i f f’ s c o mp l a i n tr e l a t e d t o th e s a me co p yr ig h t claim th at w as re g istere d w ith th e C o p yr ig h t O ff ice. H er e, O ra v ec ’s e xi s t i ng c om pl a i nta l l e ge d i nf r i nge m e ntof

hi s M a r c h 2004 P G S c opy r i ght , butnot hi s Jul y 200 6 arc hi t ec tural w ork cop yr i gh t s. T o al l ege i nfri ng em entof the l att er , O r a v e c w a s r e q u ir e d to a m e n d h is c o m p la in t. I I I . CONCL US I ON F o rth e f o r e g o in g r e a s o n s , w e a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. AF F I RME D.

### AP P E NDI X A

### AP P E NDI X B