William Hablinski Architecture v. Amir Construction Inc.

MEMORANDUM *

William Hablinski Architecture (WHA) appeals the district court’s judgment after a second jury trial in which a damage award was made against Amir Construction Inc., Euroconcepts, Inc., Parviz Elihu, Daniel Elihu, Albert Elihu, Joseph Elihu, and Hayadeh Elihu (collectively “Amir”). The award was on account of Amir’s infringement of WHA’s copyright in architectural plans and in an architectural work. Amir cross-appeals on various grounds. We affirm.

(1) WHA first asserts that the district court erred when it granted a motion for a new trial on the basis that the special verdict form submitted to the jury at the first trial did not properly provide for apportionment of profits from a sale of Amir’s infringing house. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 59. We disagree. We owe the district court considerable deference in this area, 1 and it did not abuse its discretion 2 when it determined that the omission prevented the jury from reaching “all factual issues essential to the judgment,” 3 and, therefore, resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The special verdict form did not provide for an apportionment of infringer’s profits between those based upon infringement of WHA’s copyrighted…