## Facts

- Kepner-Tregoe, Inc. (K‑T) created and sold structured problem-solving training programs using written course materials developed by K‑T.
- Michael J. Carabio and Lawrence E. Padlo worked for K‑T and became familiar with K‑T’s training materials during their employment.
- After leaving K‑T, Padlo formed Business Processes, Inc. (BPI) to offer similar problem-solving training programs.
- Padlo compiled BPI’s course materials using, in part, his personal notes from his time at K‑T and his knowledge of K‑T’s materials.
- BPI’s materials were highly similar to K‑T’s materials, and at least a couple of BPI’s case studies were virtually identical to K‑T’s case studies.
- After resigning from K‑T, Carabio joined BPI.
- K‑T sued BPI, Padlo, and Carabio for copyright infringement based on the similarity between the competing training materials.
- Defendants acknowledged extensive similarity but argued K‑T was attempting to claim exclusive rights in an uncopyrightable problem-solving method and that there were only limited ways to express the ideas taught in the course.

## Issues

1. Are K‑T’s problem-solving training materials protected by copyright to the extent they contain original expression, even though the underlying method taught is not protected?
2. Did defendants infringe K‑T’s copyrights by producing and using training materials that closely tracked K‑T’s materials, including virtually identical case studies, rather than merely using the same unprotected ideas?

## Decision

- The court held that K‑T’s training materials contained protectable expression, even though the problem-solving method itself was not protected.
- The court found that defendants’ competing materials infringed K‑T’s copyrights based on the extent of copying of K‑T’s expressive content, including near-verbatim duplication of certain case studies and close similarity in the presentation of the course materials.
- The court rejected defendants’ argument that similarity was excused merely because the underlying ideas could be expressed only in a limited number of ways, where defendants appropriated K‑T’s specific expressive choices.

## Legal Principles

- Copyright protects original expression in instructional and training materials (such as wording, selection and arrangement, and illustrative case studies), not the underlying ideas, methods, or processes being taught.
- A defendant may compete by teaching the same general method, but may not copy the plaintiff’s particular expression of that method.
- The “limited number of ways to express an idea” argument may narrow the scope of protection for functional subject matter, but it does not permit copying of concrete expressive elements such as narrative examples and closely matching text and organization.
- Substantial similarity can be established where a defendant’s materials replicate protected expressive features, especially where the defendant had access through prior employment and the accused work includes near-identical case studies.

## Conclusion

The court treated K‑T’s program as copyrightable at the level of expression and concluded that defendants crossed the line from lawful competition over a problem-solving method into infringement by copying K‑T’s expressive training content, including virtually identical case studies and closely parallel course materials.


Kepner-Tregoe, Inc. v. Carabio, 203 U.S.P.Q. 124 (1979)