Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Kipp Flores Architects, L.L.C. v. Hallmark Design, 13-20011 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 13-20011 Visitors: 22
Filed: Nov. 07, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 13-20011 Document: 00512433794 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/07/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 13-20011 November 7, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk KIPP FLORES ARCHITECTS, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellee, versus HALLMARK DESIGN HOMES, L.P., Defendant-Appellant, RONALD D. TOW, Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee, Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas No. 4:09-CV-850 Before SMI
More
Case: 13-20011 Document: 00512433794 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/07/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 13-20011 November 7, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk KIPP FLORES ARCHITECTS, L.L.C., Plaintiff−Appellee, versus HALLMARK DESIGN HOMES, L.P., Defendant−Appellant, RONALD D. TOW, Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee, Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas No. 4:09-CV-850 Before SMITH, PRADO, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 13-20011 Document: 00512433794 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/07/2013 No. 13-20011 Kipp Flores Architects, L.L.C. (“KFA”), sued Hallmark Design Homes, L.P. (“Hallmark”), for copyright infringement in building houses based on KFA’s architectural plans without purchasing the plans for each house as required. A jury found Hallmark liable and awarded substantial damages. Hallmark appeals, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support a jury finding of “substantial similarity” and that the damages are inappropriate as a matter of law because KFA did not meet its burden of proof. We have reviewed the briefs, the applicable law, and the pertinent por- tions of the record and have heard the arguments of counsel. The case was well tried by the magistrate judge sitting by consent. There is no error, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer