## Facts

- Amini Innovation Corp. sold carved bedroom furniture collections (*LaFrancaise* and *Paradisio*) and held copyright registrations covering “carved ornamental woodwork” embodied in specified furniture pieces.
- Amini also owned U.S. Design Patent No. D475,218 covering the ornamental design of its *Paradisio* bed frame.
- Anthony California, Inc., a competitor, sold carved bedroom furniture collections (*Sonoran* and *Hercules*). Its president, James Chang, had exposure to Amini’s products in the market.
- In August 2003, Amini notified Chang that Anthony’s products allegedly infringed Amini’s copyrights and design patent and demanded that sales stop; Anthony refused.
- Amini sued in December 2003 alleging six counts of copyright infringement and one count of design-patent infringement.
- After discovery (including expert testimony), the district court granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims and denied Amini’s partial summary-judgment motion on copyright.

## Issues

1. Whether Amini’s “carved ornamental woodwork,” including its selection and arrangement of common motifs, contained protectable original expression sufficient to survive summary judgment.
2. Whether substantial similarity between Anthony’s furniture and Amini’s protectable expression could be resolved as a matter of law on summary judgment.
3. Whether design-patent noninfringement could be granted on summary judgment based on the absence of certain elements, rather than comparing the overall visual impression under the ordinary-observer test.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit reversed the summary judgment of noninfringement on the copyright claims and remanded.
- The court held that genuine disputes of material fact existed as to whether Amini’s carved ornamental woodwork reflected protectable originality, including in the selection and arrangement of largely common design elements.
- The court held that, given the disputed scope of protectable expression and record evidence of similarity and access, substantial similarity could not be decided as a matter of law.
- The court reversed summary judgment on the design-patent claim because the district court’s analysis improperly focused on missing discrete features instead of the overall appearance to an ordinary observer.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Originality under copyright requires only a low threshold of creativity; a selection and arrangement of elements can be protectable even if individual elements are common or in the public domain.
- Courts should not define protectable expression by dissecting a work into unprotectable parts and then concluding nothing protectable remains; the combination may be protectable.
- Substantial similarity typically involves an objective analytic component and a subjective ordinary-observer component; summary judgment is disfavored when reasonable factfinders could differ on similarity of protectable expression.
- Design-patent infringement is assessed from the viewpoint of an ordinary observer and turns on the overall visual impression, not a checklist of individual features.
- Summary judgment is improper when the record permits a reasonable factfinder to find overall similarity under the governing infringement standards.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit held that disputes over originality and substantial similarity in ornamental carved furniture designs, and over design-patent infringement under the ordinary-observer test, presented factual questions that could not be resolved on summary judgment, requiring reversal and remand.


Amini Innovation Corp. v. Anthony California, Inc., 439 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2006)