Court Opinion

ID: 9409281
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-17 17:01:33.057851+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:49.458367
License: Public Domain

FOR PUBLICATION

  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
       FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT                     No. 22-35345
LIMITED, INC.; MARY LIPPITT,
Doctor,                                  D.C. No. 2:19-cv-
                                           01458-DWC
              Plaintiffs-Appellants,

 v.                                         OPINION

CONSTRUX SOFTWARE
BUILDERS, INC.; STEVE C.
MCCONNELL,

              Defendants-Appellees.

       Appeal from the United States District Court
         for the Western District of Washington
      David W. Christel, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

           Argued and Submitted May 8, 2023
                  Seattle, Washington

                   Filed July 17, 2023

  Before: William A. Fletcher, Richard R. Clifton, and
           Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges.

                 Opinion by Judge Ikuta
2 ENTER. MGMT.LTD. INC. V. CONSTRUX SOFTWARE BUILDERS, INC.

                          SUMMARY *

                            Copyright

    The panel reversed the district court’s partial grant of
summary judgment in favor of defendants, vacated a jury
verdict, vacated an award of attorneys’ fees, and remanded
an action alleging infringement of copyrights in two charts
depicting organizational change.
    The district court granted partial summary judgment on
a claim of infringement of plaintiff’s “Managing Complex
Change” chart, on the ground that plaintiff failed to show
that this chart was registered with the Copyright Office.
    The panel held that plaintiff raised a genuine dispute
whether she registered the chart directly or whether she
registered elements of that chart by later registering an
“Aligning for Success” chart. Agreeing with other circuits
on a matter of first impression, the panel held that by
registering a derivative work, an author registers all of the
material included in the derivative work, including that
which previously appeared in an unregistered, original work
created by the author. The panel therefore reversed the
district court’s grant of summary judgment, and also vacated
the jury verdict because, as a result of the grant of summary
judgment, the district court prevented plaintiff from
introducing any evidence and making any argument as to the
Managing Complex Change chart at trial.

*
 This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has
been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
  ENTER. MGMT.LTD. INC. V. CONSTRUX SOFTWARE BUILDERS, INC. 3

    The panel further held that the district court erred in
instructing the jury that if it found that defendant accessed
and copied other work but did not copy the registered
Aligning for Success chart, then defendant’s challenged
work was an independent creation. The panel held that an
author of an original work is entitled to sue a third party who
makes an unauthorized copy of a derivative work to the
extent that the material copied derived from the underlying
work. The instruction incorrectly stated Ninth Circuit law
because it prevented the jury from finding that defendant
copied the Aligning for Success chart if he copied work that
itself copied the Aligning for Success chart.

                         COUNSEL

Benjamin J. Hodges (argued) and Kelly Mennemeier, Foster
Garvey PC, Seattle, Washington, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Lawrence D. Graham (argued), Lowe Graham Jones PLLC,
Seattle, Washington, for Defendants-Appellees.

                         OPINION

IKUTA, Circuit Judge:

    Mary Lippitt claims Steve McConnell infringed her
copyrights in two charts depicting organizational change.
The key question before us is whether the copyright in one
of those charts was registered with the Copyright Office,
such that it will support a suit for copyright infringement.
We hold that Lippitt created a genuine issue of material fact
4 ENTER. MGMT.LTD. INC. V. CONSTRUX SOFTWARE BUILDERS, INC.

on that question. We also hold, as a matter of first
impression, that by registering a derivative work, an author
registers all of the material included in the derivative work,
including that which previously appeared in an unregistered,
original work created by the author. Accordingly, we
reverse, vacate, and remand.
                                  I
                                  A
    Doctor Mary Lippitt and her company, Enterprise
Management Ltd., have built a career advising organizations
on how to accomplish organizational change. 1 During her
more than 40 years in this field, Lippitt developed a
substantial array of material for multi-day presentations and
consulting activities on the topic of organizational change.
According to Lippitt, she distilled the essence of her work
into a one-page chart that graphically shows the components
necessary to accomplish organizational change and
demonstrates that organizational change will fail if any of
the components are missing.
    The first version of this chart was entitled “Managing
Complex Change.” The chart includes six columns and six
rows of text boxes connected by arrows depicting cause and
effect. The top row first lists the five essential components:
“Vision”; “Skills”; “Incentives”; “Resources”; and “Action
Plan.” The sixth column has the word “Change,” indicating
that with all five components, successful organizational
change is possible. The five lower rows all have one

1
 We refer to Lippitt and Enterprise individually, where appropriate, or
collectively as “Lippitt.”
  ENTER. MGMT.LTD. INC. V. CONSTRUX SOFTWARE BUILDERS, INC. 5

component missing, and the sixth column explains what
happens when that component is absent. 2

    According to her sworn declaration and deposition
testimony, Lippitt included this chart in a collection of
presentation materials entitled “Transition: Accomplishing
Organization Change,” which she submitted to the
Copyright Office in 1987. The Register of Copyright
(Register) registered this material and issued a Registration
Certificate, No. TX 2-124-202 (the 202 registration

2
  The second row is missing “Vision,” resulting in “Confusion.” The
third row is missing “Skills,” resulting in “Anxiety.” The fourth row is
missing “Incentives,” resulting in “Gradual Change.” The fifth row is
missing “Resources” resulting in “Frustration.” And the sixth row is
missing “Action Plan,” resulting in “False Starts.”
6 ENTER. MGMT.LTD. INC. V. CONSTRUX SOFTWARE BUILDERS, INC.

certificate). The Copyright Office subsequently destroyed
the deposit copy corresponding to the 202 registration
certificate pursuant to its routine practice. See 17 U.S.C.
§ 704(d). Lippitt also did not save a copy of the “Transition:
Accomplishing Organization Change” presentation
materials.
    Lippitt’s Managing Complex Change chart apparently
struck a chord with experts on organizational change,
because versions of the chart were subsequently used by
other speakers in this field. For instance, Dr. Tim Knoster,
a special education expert, presented a virtually identical
chart entitled “Managing Complex Change” at an
educational conference in 1991 and later included it in his
book. Knoster obtained a copy of the chart from a colleague
who saw it at a professional development presentation. The
presenters credited Dr. Delorese Ambrose with creating the
chart in 1987.
    Lippitt continued to use and refine her Managing
Complex Change chart. In 2000, she developed a chart
entitled “Aligning for Success” as part of a presentation
entitled “Leadership Spectrum: Targeting Results.” Like the
Managing Complex Change chart, the Aligning for Success
chart had six rows and six columns showing the necessary
components for change. The chart made some word choice
changes, such as substituting “Capabilities” for “Skills” in
the second column, “Success” for “Change” in the sixth
column, and “Restraint; Resistance” for “Gradual Change”
in the sixth column. It also made minor stylistic changes. 3

3
  Stylistically, the Aligning for Success chart displays the words in the
first five columns in circles instead of boxes as in the Managing Complex
Change chart. Also, a line runs down the middle of the chart in the place
of blanks for the missing components. Instead of arrows, the entries in
  ENTER. MGMT.LTD. INC. V. CONSTRUX SOFTWARE BUILDERS, INC. 7

    Lippitt submitted the “Leadership Spectrum”
presentation materials, along with the Aligning for Success
chart, to the Copyright Office in 2000. The Register
registered this material and issued a Registration Certificate,
No. TXu 956-226 (the 226 registration certificate). On the
226 registration certificate, Lippitt checked the box “No” in
the “Previous Registration” section, which asks “[h]as
registration for this work, or for an earlier version of this
work, already been made in the Copyright Office?” Lippitt
also left blank the section asking the applicant to “[i]dentify

the first five columns are connected by “+” and connected to the final
column with “=”.
8 ENTER. MGMT.LTD. INC. V. CONSTRUX SOFTWARE BUILDERS, INC.

any preexisting work or works that this work is based on or
incorporates.”
    Lippitt submitted an identical Aligning for Success chart
to the Copyright Office in 2003, as part of presentation
materials called “Leading Complex Change: A Five
Component Framework for Success.” The Register issued a
Registration Certificate, No. TX 5-827-350 (the 350
registration certificate). In this registration certification,
Lippitt checked the “Yes” box in the “Previous Registration”
section, representing that the work had already been
registered with the Copyright Office, and stated that the
work was a derivative work, based on “[the] manual
Transition Accomplishing Organization Change.”              In
response to the request to “[g]ive a brief, general statement
of the material that has been added to this work and in which
copyright is claimed,” the 350 registration certificate stated
that there was a “[n]ew chart on how the positive reaction to
change is visual in an organization added to the last page.
New explanations added.”
                              B
    In 2016, Steve McConnell, the CEO and chief software
engineer of Construx, prepared a YouTube video about
“how to be successful in applying agile practices.” The
video incorporated a chart McConnell created based on a
chart that he had seen in 2013 in a presentation by the
Auburn School District. The Auburn School District’s
presentation attributed the chart to Knoster’s 1991
presentation. The presentation further noted that Knoster
adapted his chart “from Enterprise Group Ltd.” The
McConnell chart, which he entitled “Lippitt/Knoster Change
Model,” was similar to the Aligning for Success chart.
McConnell’s most significant change was to add a new
    ENTER. MGMT.LTD. INC. V. CONSTRUX SOFTWARE BUILDERS, INC. 9

second column titled “Consensus” and new third row with
the “Consensus” component missing, resulting in
“Sabotage.” The McConnell chart also changed a few words
in the final results column. Where the sixth column of the
Aligning for Success chart uses the words “Success” in the
first row, “Restraint; Resistance” in the fourth row, and
“False Starts” in the sixth row, the seventh column of the
McConnell chart used the words “Change” in the first row,
“Resistance” in the sixth row, and “Treadmill” in the seventh
row, respectively, just as in the Auburn School District chart.
Stylistically, the McConnell chart has different spacing, font
sizes, and colors. McConnell subsequently used his chart in
his book, “More Effective Agile: A Roadmap for Software
Leaders,” and in business presentations. 4

4
 The version of the chart depicted in this opinion is featured in one of
McConnell’s presentations.
10 ENTER. MGMT.LTD. INC. V. CONSTRUX SOFTWARE BUILDERS, INC.

                              C
    After Lippitt learned about the McConnell chart, her
attorney sent a cease-and-desist letter to McConnell. After
McConnell refused to stop using the chart, she brought a
copyright infringement action against McConnell and
Construx (collectively, McConnell) for infringement of both
the Managing Complex Change chart and Aligning for
Success chart. Following discovery, McConnell moved for
summary judgment, which the district court granted in part
and denied in part. The district court first ruled that Lippitt
failed to show that she had registered the Managing
Complex Change chart because she did not present evidence
that the chart was included in the “Transition:
Accomplishing Organization Change” material registered by
the 202 registration certificate. Therefore, the district court
granted summary judgment in McConnell’s favor with
respect to Lippitt’s claim that McConnell infringed the
Managing Complex Change chart. The district court also
denied the motion for summary judgment with respect to
Lippitt’s claim that McConnell infringed the Aligning for
Success chart because Lippitt created a genuine issue of
material fact as to whether McConnell had copied it. Based
on this ruling, the district court issued a pretrial order
precluding Lippitt from basing any argument on her alleged
ownership of the copyright in the Managing Complex
Change chart, including any argument that McConnell
infringed the Aligning for Success chart by copying
elements from the Managing Complex Change chart.
    At trial, Lippitt argued that McConnell infringed her
Aligning for Success chart by copying the chart presented by
the Auburn School District. McConnell argued that this
evidence did not show that he had copied the Aligning for
Success chart—the only infringement claim before the
  ENTER. MGMT.LTD. INC. V. CONSTRUX SOFTWARE BUILDERS, INC. 11

jury—because the Auburn School District chart was
attributed to Knoster’s 1991 chart, and Lippitt had not
created the Aligning for Success chart until 2003. Following
closing arguments, the district court provided the following
jury instruction over Lippitt’s objection:

       There is no copyright infringement when
       Defendant shows they independently created
       the challenged work, meaning that the
       challenged work was created by drawing
       from other work without copying the
       registered work. If you find the evidence
       shows Defendants accessed and copied other
       work but did not copy the registered work
       then the challenged work is an independent
       creation. . . . If you find Defendants
       independently created the challenged work,
       your verdict should be for Defendants.

    The jury returned a verdict for McConnell, and the
district court granted McConnell’s motion for attorneys’
fees. Lippitt timely appealed.
     We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See
Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n, 494 F.3d 788, 793–
94 (9th Cir. 2007). We review de novo the grant of summary
judgment, see Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Enchantment at Sunset
Bay Condo. Ass’n, 2 F.4th 1229, 1231 (9th Cir. 2021), and
whether a jury instruction accurately stated the law, see
Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P. (Unicolors
II), 52 F.4th 1054, 1063–64 (9th Cir. 2022).
12 ENTER. MGMT.LTD. INC. V. CONSTRUX SOFTWARE BUILDERS, INC.

                              II
                              A
    We first consider whether Lippitt raised a genuine issue
of material fact that she registered the Managing Complex
Change chart by including it in the material corresponding
to the 202 registration certificate. Although the only
evidence supporting this claim was Lippitt’s declaration and
deposition, such evidence may be sufficient if it is “based on
personal knowledge, legally relevant, and internally
consistent” and did not “state[] only conclusions.” Nigro v.
Sears, Roebuck & Co., 784 F.3d 495, 497–98 (9th Cir.
2015); cf. CFPB v. Gordon, 819 F.3d 1179, 1194 (9th Cir.
2016) (holding that a party’s declaration did not create a
genuine issue of material fact because it “lack[ed] detailed
facts and any supporting evidence” and “contradict[ed] . . .
prior statements” (citation and quotation marks omitted)).
    Lippitt’s testimony meets these requirements. Lippitt’s
declaration, based on her personal knowledge, states that
“[t]he 202 Registration was a copy of presentation material”
that Lippitt created to use for a multi-day training “program
on organizational change concepts,” and the Managing
Complex Change chart “formed a crucial part of the
program.” Lippitt’s statements in her deposition were
consistent with her declaration; she testified that the
presentation included her work on organizational change and
the Managing Complex Change chart. When asked whether
the presentation, which included the Managing Complex
Change chart, was “the material that [she] submitted to the
copyright office along with the registration form for the 202
registration,” Lippitt answered “Yes.”
   Further, both Lippitt’s declaration and deposition
provided detailed facts supporting her assertion. The
    ENTER. MGMT.LTD. INC. V. CONSTRUX SOFTWARE BUILDERS, INC. 13

declaration explained that the Managing Complex Change
chart’s “prominence in [Lippitt’s] teaching also supports
[her] unwavering recollection that the chart was part of the”
presentation submitted to the Copyright Office and
registered by the 202 registration certificate. And in her
deposition testimony, Lippitt stated that the presentation was
approximately 30 pages long and “was handed out in a three-
ring binder with a colored cover and black and white pages.”
She testified that other than the chart, the presentation
included “[d]escriptions of the different factors under each
part of the chart,” as well as “exercises for people to think
about a successful change” and “unsuccessful changes.”
    These detailed and consistent factual statements were
sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact
whether the 202 registration certificate registered the
Managing Complex Change chart. See Williams v. Gaye,
895 F.3d 1106, 1124, 1126 (9th Cir. 2018) (holding that
“what was in the deposit copy was a factual dispute for the
jury to decide,” as was “[t]he question of whose
interpretation of the deposit copy to credit”). The district
court erred in holding otherwise.
                                   B
    Lippitt also argues that she raised a genuine issue of
material fact that she registered the elements of the
Managing Complex Change chart that were included in the
Aligning for Success chart, which was registered pursuant to
the 226 registration certificate and the 350 registration
certificate. 5 This argument is not redundant because even if

5
  Lippitt preserved this argument by alleging in her complaint that the
Managing Complex Change chart was registered and that the Aligning
for Success chart was derived from the Managing Complex Change
chart, and raising the argument before the district court at the motion in
14 ENTER. MGMT.LTD. INC. V. CONSTRUX SOFTWARE BUILDERS, INC.

the jury ultimately determines at trial that Lippitt did not
register the Managing Complex Change chart in the 220
registration certificate, she could prevail on this alternative
theory. 6
                                     1
    To address this argument, we must first determine
whether a copyright owner who creates an original work (but
does not register it) and subsequently registers a derivative
work based on that original work registers the elements in
the original work that are included in the derivative work.
This is an issue of first impression in our Circuit. Given the
flexible nature of registration, we conclude that registration
of a derivative work registers such elements.
    The owner of an original work has a copyright
“immediately upon the work’s creation.” Fourth Est. Pub.
Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, 139 S. Ct. 881, 887
(2019) (citing 17 U.S.C. § 106). If the owner of an original
work prepares a derivative work—“a work based upon one
or more preexisting works that recasts, transforms, or adapts
the preexisting work,” DC Comics v. Towle, 802 F.3d 1012,
1023 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation and quotation marks
omitted)—the owner has a copyright in both the original

limine stage. Lippitt was not required to plead this specific legal theory
in the complaint in order to preserve it. See Elec. Constr. & Maint. Co.
v. Maeda Pac. Corp., 764 F.2d 619, 622 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A party does
not need to plead specific legal theories in the complaint, as long as the
opposing party receives notice as to what is at issue in the lawsuit.”).
6
  The jury’s determination as to which registration certificate registered
the Managing Complex Change chart may limit the remedies available
to Lippitt, as she is entitled to statutory damages and attorneys’ fees only
to the extent infringement occurred after the work was registered. See
17 U.S.C. § 412.
  ENTER. MGMT.LTD. INC. V. CONSTRUX SOFTWARE BUILDERS, INC. 15

elements and all derivative elements. See 17 U.S.C. § 106(2)
(stating that the copyright owner “has the exclusive right[]
to . . . prepare derivative works based upon [the owner’s]
copyrighted work”); DC Comics, 802 F.3d at 1023
(recognizing that the owner of the original work “retains a
copyright in that derivative work with respect to all of the
elements that the derivative creator drew from the
underlying work and employed in the derivative work”).
    The Copyright Act’s registration requirement does not
impose a heavy burden on the copyright owner. See Fourth
Est., 139 S. Ct. at 887 (noting that the registration
requirement “is akin to an administrative exhaustion
requirement”). A work can be registered at any time during
the term of copyright and any extension of that term. See 17
U.S.C. § 408(a). There are disadvantages to delaying
registration, however. If a certificate of registration is issued
“before or within five years after first publication of the
work[, it] shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity
of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.” Id.
§ 410(c). But if the certification of registration is issued
more than five years after first publication, “[t]he evidentiary
weight to be accorded [to] the certificate of a registration . .
. shall be within the discretion of the court.” Id. In addition,
certain remedies may be limited for infringement prior to
registration. See id. § 412; supra at p.14, n.6.
     Nor is the registration procedure burdensome. “To
obtain registration, the author of a work must submit to the
Register of Copyrights a copy of the work and an
application.” Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.
P. (Unicolors I), 142 S. Ct. 941, 945 (2022) (citing 17 U.S.C.
§§ 408, 409). After examining the application and the work,
if the Register “determines that . . . the material deposited
constitutes copyrightable subject matter and that the other
16 ENTER. MGMT.LTD. INC. V. CONSTRUX SOFTWARE BUILDERS, INC.

legal and formal requirements” are satisfied, “the Register
shall register the claim and issue to the applicant a certificate
of registration.” 17 U.S.C. § 410(a).
    Because the owner can register the original work at any
time and the registration applies to all “the material
deposited [that] constitutes copyrightable subject matter,”
id., we conclude that when a derivative work includes
copyrightable elements of the unregistered original work, the
owner’s registration of the derivative work also registers the
included elements of the original work.
    All circuits that have addressed this issue agree with this
conclusion. In the leading case of Streetwise Maps, the
owner of a copyright in a New York street map registered a
second street map that was derived from that original map
and added “depictions of the subway and bus systems.”
Streetwise Maps, Inc. v. VanDam, Inc., 159 F.3d 739, 741,
746 (2d Cir. 1998). Later, the owner of the copyright sued a
third party for infringing its copyright in the original map.
See id. at 742. The defendant argued that, first, the owner
could not bring the suit because it had not registered the
original map and, second, the registration for the derivative
map registered only those elements that had not been
included in the original. See id. at 746–47. The Second
Circuit rejected this argument. See id. at 747. It held that
where an owner holds the copyright in both the derivative
and original work, “the registration certificate relating to the
derivative work in this circumstance will suffice to permit it
to maintain an action for infringement based on defendants’
infringement of the pre-existing work.” Id.; see also 2
Nimmer on Copyright § 7.16[B][5][c] (2023) (“[W]hen the
same party owns the derivative . . . work plus the underlying
elements incorporated therein, its registration of the former
is sufficient to permit an infringement action on the
    ENTER. MGMT.LTD. INC. V. CONSTRUX SOFTWARE BUILDERS, INC. 17

underlying parts, whether they be new or preexisting.”
(citation and quotation marks omitted)); R.W. Beck, Inc. v.
E3 Consulting, LLC, 577 F.3d 1133, 1143 (10th Cir. 2009)
(“[I]f the same party owns a copyright in both a derivative
work . . . and the underlying work that is incorporated in the
derivative work, registration of a copyright in the derivative
work is sufficient to permit an infringement action on either
preexisting . . . material or on any newly contributed
material.”); Christopher Phelps & Assocs., LLC v.
Galloway, 492 F.3d 532, 539 (4th Cir. 2007) (holding that a
copyright owner’s registration of a derivative work also
registered the elements of the owner’s original work that
appeared in the derivative work). 7
                                   2
    Applying this analysis here, we hold that Lippitt can
argue that she registered the elements of the Managing
Complex Change chart that were included in the Aligning
for Success chart. McConnell did not create a disputed
material fact as to Lippitt’s authorship of the Managing
Complex Change chart, and the parties agree that Lippitt is
the author of the Aligning for Success chart. Nor do the
parties dispute that the Aligning for Success chart is a
derivative work of the Managing Complex Change chart or
that elements of the Managing Complex Change chart are
included in the Aligning for Success chart. Therefore, the
registration certificates for the Aligning for Success chart
(the 226 registration certificate and the 350 registration

7
 Nevertheless, registering the derivative work will not register elements
of the original work that were not included in the derivative work. See
Oravec v. Sunny Isles Luxury Ventures, L.C., 527 F.3d 1218, 1231 (11th
Cir. 2008).
18 ENTER. MGMT.LTD. INC. V. CONSTRUX SOFTWARE BUILDERS, INC.

certificate) permit Lippitt to bring an action for infringement
of the aspects of the Managing Complex Change chart that
were included in the Aligning for Success chart. See
Streetwise, 159 F.3d at 747.
    McConnell argues that the registrations for the Aligning
for Success chart could not have registered the Managing
Complex Change chart because the registration certificates
do not expressly refer to the Managing Complex Change
chart. Further, he argues, the registration for the 226
registration certificate is inconsistent with Lippitt’s
arguments because it expressly states that registration for the
Aligning for Success chart or an earlier version of that chart
had not been previously made to the Copyright Office, and
it does not indicate that the work is a derivative work.
    We disagree. “[T]he Copyright Act provides a safe
harbor” for inaccurate information in a registration
certificate. Unicolors I, 142 S. Ct. at 945. A certificate of
registration is valid even if it contains “any inaccurate
information, unless” the copyright registration applicant
included the information “with knowledge that it was
inaccurate” and “the inaccuracy of the information, if
known, would have caused the Register of Copyrights to
refuse registration.” 17 U.S.C. § 411(b)(1). Thus, “[l]ack of
knowledge of either fact or law can excuse an inaccuracy in
a copyright registration.” Unicolors I, 142 S. Ct. at 945.
And, with respect to the second element, “the court shall
request the Register of Copyrights to advise the court
whether the inaccurate information, if known, would have
caused the Register of Copyrights to refuse registration.” 17
U.S.C. § 411(b)(2).
    McConnell does not argue, nor does the record show,
that Lippitt knowingly omitted information about
  ENTER. MGMT.LTD. INC. V. CONSTRUX SOFTWARE BUILDERS, INC. 19

preexisting works or that information about preexisting
works was material.          See 2 Nimmer on Copyright
§ 7.20[B][1] (2023) (“In general, failure to disclose that the
registered work is derivative of an earlier, underlying work
should occasion rejection of the registration certificate only
if the claimant was for some reason ineligible to register the
derivative work.”). Therefore, Lippitt created a genuine
issue of material fact that elements of the Managing
Complex Change chart that were included in the Aligning
for Success chart were registered either by the 226
registration certificate or the 350 registration certificate.
    Even if Lippitt is not entitled to the safe harbor for
inaccurate information in the 226 registration certificate, the
350 registration certificate accurately stated that it registered
a derivative work of the manual titled “Transition
Accomplishing Organizational Change,” which, according
to Lippitt’s declaration, was the title of the presentation that
included the Managing Complex Change chart and was
created in 1987. The 350 registration certificate also states
that a “previous or alternative title[]” of the registered work
was “Managing Complex Change,” the same title as the
Managing Complex Change chart. This evidence creates a
genuine issue of material fact whether Lippitt registered
elements of the Managing Complex Change chart when she
subsequently registered the Aligning for Success chart under
the 350 registration certificate.
                               3
    Because Lippitt raised a genuine dispute whether she
registered the Managing Complex Change chart directly (in
the 202 registration certificate) or whether she registered
elements of that chart by registering the Aligning for Success
chart (in the 226 registration certificate or the 350
20 ENTER. MGMT.LTD. INC. V. CONSTRUX SOFTWARE BUILDERS, INC.

registration certificate), we reverse the grant of summary
judgment for McConnell. 8 We therefore also vacate the jury
verdict for McConnell because, as a result of the grant of
summary judgment, the district court prevented Lippitt from
introducing any evidence and making any argument as to the
Managing Complex Change chart at trial. 9
                                   III
    Finally, we consider Lippitt’s challenge to the jury
instruction stating that if the jury found that McConnell
“accessed and copied other work but did not copy the
registered work then the challenged work is an independent
creation,” and the jury’s verdict should be for McConnell.10

8
  Our conclusion is consistent with the Tenth Circuit’s resolution of a
separate but similar copyright infringement suit brought by Lippitt. See
Enter. Mgmt. Ltd. v. Warrick, 717 F.3d 1112 (10th Cir. 2013). In that
case, the Tenth Circuit reversed a grant of summary judgment for the
defendant, holding that Lippitt presented a genuine issue of material fact
that the Managing Complex Change chart was registered both because
“Lippitt testified at her deposition that the [Managing Complex Change
chart] was first included in materials registered in 1987,” in the 202
registration certificate, and because the 226 registration certificate and
350 registration certificate registered the Managing Complex Change
chart as a preexisting work that was included in the Aligning for Success
chart. Id. at 1120 & n.8, 1121.
9
 Because we reverse the grant of summary judgment and vacate the jury
verdict, we also vacate the award of attorneys’ fees to McConnell. See
17 U.S.C. § 505 (stating that a court may award “attorney’s fee[s] to the
prevailing party” in a copyright infringement action).
10
    Lippitt also argues that the district court erred in issuing a
supplemental jury instruction that “[t]he Auburn School District chart . .
. was not derived from the Aligning for Success Chart.” We reject this
argument because Lippitt produced no evidence at trial that the creators
of this chart accessed the Aligning for Success chart either directly or
through widespread dissemination. See Rentmeester v. Nike, Inc., 883
  ENTER. MGMT.LTD. INC. V. CONSTRUX SOFTWARE BUILDERS, INC. 21

    We conclude that this instruction is incorrect. Under our
precedent, if elements in an original work were copied by an
infringing work, and the defendant copies those elements as
set forth in the infringing work, the defendant’s copy
infringes the original work. See DC Comics, 802 F.3d at
1024 (holding that “if the material copied was derived from
a copyrighted underlying work, this will constitute an
infringement of such work regardless of whether the
defendant copied directly from the underlying work, or
indirectly via the derivative work” (quoting 1 Nimmer on
Copyright § 3.05 (Matthew Bender, Rev. Ed.))). Therefore,
the author of the original work “is entitled to sue a third party
who makes an unauthorized copy of [a] . . . derivative work
to the extent that the material copied derived from the
underlying work.” Id.
    Under this framework, Lippitt can sue McConnell for
copying elements of the chart presented by the Auburn
School District to the extent that the Auburn School District
chart infringed on elements of the Aligning For Success
chart and McConnell copied those elements. However, the
jury instruction directed that so long as McConnell “did not
copy” the Aligning for Success chart directly, then his chart
was “an independent creation” even if McConnell copied
elements from the Auburn School District chart that were
derived from the Aligning For Success chart. This
incorrectly stated our Circuit’s law because the instruction
prevented the jury from finding that McConnell copied the
Aligning for Success chart if McConnell copied work that

F.3d 1111, 1116–17 (9th Cir. 2018), overruled on other grounds by
Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, 952 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2020) (en banc)
(stating direct and circumstantial evidence requirements for a copyright
infringement claim).
22 ENTER. MGMT.LTD. INC. V. CONSTRUX SOFTWARE BUILDERS, INC.

itself copied the Aligning For Success chart. See id. This
error was not harmless because it allowed the jury to find in
favor of McConnell even if his chart infringed Lippitt’s
copyright in the Aligning for Success chart. See id.
     REVERSED, VACATED, AND REMANDED.11

11
  Costs shall be taxed against Defendants-Appellees, Construx and
McConnell.