In Court:

IP Team Secures Dramatic Result In Retrial of Landmark Architectural Copyright Case

Richard P. Sybert and Craig J. Mariam of Gordon & Rees' IP team secured a significant victory for defendants in the two-week retrial of a landmark 2005 architectural copyright case, William Hablinski Architecture v Amir Construction, et al. The case involved alleged infringement of building plans and design for the 20,000-square foot Bel Air mansion of Westside Los Angeles real estate mogul, Fred Sands. Plaintiff, William Hablinski Architecture, accused the defendants of building a "copycat" house in nearby Beverly Hills.

Gordon & Rees substituted into the case as new counsel only two months prior to the retrial. This same trial team had won a landmark trademark case before another judge of the same court earlier in 2006 in reclaiming the rights to the mark MALIBU PIER for the State of California.

Defendant's stunning reversal of fortune took place in a Los Angeles federal courtroom just three days before Christmas. The jury returned a verdict which reduced by almost 90 percent the prior $5.9 million judgment entered against defendants.

The reduced award represented less than 5% of the fair market value of defendants' property as found by the jury. It is particularly significant because defendants were prevented from challenging the validity of the plaintiff's copyright or the prior finding of infringement.

"Intellectual property cases rarely make it to trial," noted lead trial attorney, Sybert. "To have two in the space of five months is extraordinary. To be successful in both is a measure of the expertise, dedication and effort our law firm brings to the courtroom."

The case made national headlines in 2005 when the jury in the first trial found plaintiff's copyrights to be valid, returning the $5.9 million verdict against all defendants. The court later reversed all but $380,061 of that award due to a disputed verdict form, but limited the re-trial to damages under Section 504(b) of the Copyright Act only. The court held that liability, copyright validity, and infringement were already established, and could not be re-argued.

Thus, defendants were prevented from presenting a full case. In particular, they were denied the ability to present evidence that plaintiff's design was derivative of historic Italianate architecture. Instead, the issues before the jury on retrial were limited to fair market value of the defendants' home, allowable deductions from fair market value, and apportionment of value attributed to plaintiff's copyrights.

"This was not an easy case because of the sharp restrictions on retrial," according to Sybert. "We were ready to show that these kinds of building designs have been around for centuries and are in the public domain, but could not do so."

Defendants argued that only a small portion of the fair market value of their house was actually attributable to the plaintiff's copyrights or to building design. Mariam explained, "Plaintiff argued to the jury that the value attributed to the copyrights was again in excess of $5 million, and that defendants' house was a complete derivative work of the Sands house. Plaintiff wanted every cent of defendants' profits, despite the years of hard work and expertise that were dedicated full-time to this project and that had nothing to do with the copyright."

Plaintiff has promised an appeal. The case has been widely reported in the news media as a landmark decision under the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990.