## Facts

- Stephen L. Bucklew developed software that used standard spreadsheet programs to help public housing authorities complete HUD grant forms by automating required arithmetic and displaying results in electronic form layouts.
- HUD forms dictated much of the content and structure of the required submissions, including the data fields to be completed and the basic tabular format.
- Bucklew did not claim copyright in the spreadsheet programs or standard spreadsheet functions used to perform calculations.
- Bucklew claimed copyright in the expressive aspects of his electronic forms, including formatting and arrangement decisions such as fonts, cell and column sizing, use of color, and certain labels and headings not mandated by HUD.
- Bucklew licensed the software under restrictions on copying and use and alleged that Hawkins, Ash, Baptie & Co., LLP and HAB, Inc. obtained his forms and duplicated them beyond authorization to create competing electronic HUD forms.
- Bucklew also asserted non-copyright claims for fraud, conversion, and civil RICO based on the same general course of conduct.

## Issues

1. Whether the claimed “look and arrangement” elements of Bucklew’s electronic HUD forms were protectable expression rather than unprotectable ideas, methods, or functionally dictated features.
2. Whether evidence supported a finding that HAB copied protectable elements (as opposed to independently creating forms dictated by HUD requirements and spreadsheet functionality).
3. Whether the damages award, and the district court’s reduction of that award, complied with the Copyright Act’s damages rules.
4. Whether Bucklew’s RICO, fraud, and conversion claims were adequately stated and supported so as to survive dismissal.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the copyright judgment on a narrower theory, recognizing only limited protectable expression in Bucklew’s selection and arrangement of certain formatting and presentation choices.
- The court affirmed the infringement finding, concluding that similarities in arbitrary expressive details supported an inference of copying.
- The court upheld the district court’s reduction of the jury’s damages award, rejecting a punitive approach to damages under the Copyright Act.
- The court affirmed dismissal of Bucklew’s RICO, fraud, and conversion claims.

## Legal Principles

- Copyright does not protect ideas, methods, functional processes, or elements dictated by external requirements, including government-prescribed form content and structure.
- A work that is highly utilitarian may still contain minimally original protectable expression in the selection, coordination, or arrangement of otherwise unprotectable elements (e.g., specific formatting and presentation choices).
- Copying may be inferred when two works share arbitrary expressive details that are unlikely to have been independently chosen, even where much of the overall design is constrained by function or standardization.
- Statutory copyright damages are not required to track proven losses or gains, but the Copyright Act does not authorize punitive damages beyond the statutory framework.
- Civil RICO requires satisfaction of enterprise-related requirements; routine use of affiliated entities is insufficient absent a showing that the structure facilitated the alleged racketeering activity.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit limited Bucklew’s copyright to specific expressive formatting and arrangement choices in his electronic HUD forms, affirmed infringement based on copying of arbitrary details, sustained a reduced damages award consistent with the Copyright Act, and affirmed dismissal of RICO and related non-copyright claims.


Bucklew v. Hawkins, Ash, Baptie & Co., LLP, 329 F.3d 923 (7th Cir. 2003)