IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—8th Cir.: Overbroad claims and duplicative actions, even if based on reasonable arguments, can lead to attorney fees, (Apr 6, 2026)

By Matthew Hersh, J.D.

The fact that the prevailing party had a wealthy litigation backer also did not undermine the case for fees.

The fact that the defendant in a copyright infringement lawsuit was funded during the litigation by a major national trade association did not limit that defendant’s right to obtain an award of attorney fees after prevailing in the litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has held. The court, in affirming the award of fees in its third brush with the same case, also emphasized that the losing plaintiff’s litigation strategy, while founded on objectively reasonable arguments, unnecessarily complicated the matter by bringing overbroad claims and duplicative actions (Designworks Homes, Inc. v. Columbia House of Brokers Realty, Inc., No. 24-3181 (8th Cir. Apr. 2, 2026)).

The long-running dispute kicked off with a 2018 lawsuit by DesignWorks Homes, a home design firm (and not infrequent copyright litigant) based in Missouri. The complaint, which was joined by the company’s sole shareholder Charles James, takes aim at Missouri-based realty firm House of Brokers. The lawsuit, which also names several individual realtors who allegedly acted “as a team” with the realty company, accuses the realtors of purloining the designs for homes with an allegedly unique “triangular atrium design.” The lawsuit, in short, alleges that the realtors essentially “reverse-engineered” the design by entering one of the homes—as a broker for the then-owner—and mapping out the house’s floorplan using computer-aided design software before posting that floorplan to their website in order to market the property.

The lawsuit went through several rounds in the courts. The district court originally granted summary judgment for the realtors in 2019 on the grounds of a provision of the Copyright Act, codified at 17 U.S.C. § 120, that exempts from copyright protection any “pictures, paintings, photographs or other pictorial representations” of a building that is visible from the public. But the Eighth Circuit two years later reversed, finding that under a proper reading of Section 120, architectural design plans were not covered by the exemption because they qualified as neither pictures nor “pictorial representations.”

The district court, on remand, again granted summary judgment for the realtors, but this time on the grounds of fair use. The court found that the realtors made a “transformative” use of the home designs because their use of the plans was “functional, informing potential buyers of the interior layout” of the homes, while the designer’s original use was “artistic and/or structural for a residential home for someone to live in.” Moreover, the court found, fair use was further supported by the fact that the underlying design plans themselves were not reproduced; rather, the copying was “minimal and insubstantial when compared to all of the technical drawings and architectural plans.” By the same token, the court found, the uploaded floorplan was not a “substitute” because it did not “supersede or replace” the overall design; rather, “architectural expertise would be required to replicate the [d]esign.” Finally, the court noted, although the use was commercial, that only minimally weighed against fair use because any eventual commission from the realtors’ sale of the homes “has an attenuated relationship to the copying at issue.”

The Eighth Circuit this time affirmed. The circuit court agreed with the lower court’s findings. But it also addressed one additional argument that was not addressed below. The house designers argued that their infringement was not merely based on the realtors’ decision to publicize their floorplan while they were selling the house incorporating the design. The realtors also, the designers alleged, kept those plans up on the website even after the property at issue—having failed to sell—was no longer on the market. But the court of appeals said that it did not make a difference. “Both before and after the listing expired,” the court noted, “the floorplan informed potential buyers of the layout and dimensions of the listed home. There is no indication it ever had an additional function, nor did this informational function lose its practical value.” Fair use was still properly established even in light of this fact. (The design firm filed a petition for certiorari, but the Supreme Court declined to intervene).

Proceedings then went back to the district court once again—but this time on the matter of attorney fees. The district court awarded fees to the realty firm. Importantly, the court noted, the architectural firm’s complaint—while eventually failing—was not objectively unreasonable. Indeed, “despite the overbreadth of Designworks’ claims,” the court noted, “the case presented the opportunity for the courts to consider the intersections among architectural works, fair use, and real estate marketing in contribution to the development of copyright.”

Nonetheless, the court found, a proper balancing of all of the attorney factors supported fees. Most importantly, the court found, the architectural firm filed “two lawsuits hinged on the same essential factual and legal premises”—an “overbroad approach to this litigation [that] suggests motivation that tends in favor of fee-shifting.’ Nor did it matter, the court noted, that the defendant's realty firm was supported in the litigation by the National Association of Realtors. That entity’s “funding of this litigation” was a relevant factor, the court found, but not sufficient to deter an award of fees.

The architecture firm appealed, leading to this opinion.

Attorney fees. The court of appeals easily affirmed the decision to award fees, essentially for the same reasons given by the district court. Critically, the court of appeals found, the district court did not err in finding that the objectively reasonable nature of the underlying claim did not preclude attorney fees. “While recognizing Designworks’s claims had some factual and legal merit,” the court of appeals noted, “the district court highlighted the overbroad nature of the claims and explained that a narrower case would have better advanced the goals of clarifying the scope of fair use relating to architectural works and marketing real estate.” Given the breadth of Designworks’s claims, the filing of separate actions, and the lack of evidentiary support for many of the claims, the court of appeals found, “we cannot say the district court abused its discretion in finding the frivolousness and motivation factors weighed in favor of fee shifting, or due to the mix of plausible and unsupported claims, the objective reasonableness factor had a neutral effect.”

Nor did the trade organization’s involvement in the case change the outcome, the court found. The architectural firm contended that the deterrence and compensation factor should have weighed in its favor because the National Association of Realtors provided funding for the litigation. “Designworks does not cite any authority for this proposition,” the court of appeals found. “Likewise,” the court noted, “Designworks cites no authority from this Circuit for its claim that a court must consider a party’s financial status as part of its § 505 analysis.” The award of fees would be affirmed.

The Case is No. 24-3181.

Judge: Per Curiam.

Attorneys: Kenneth N. Caldwell (Caldwell Law Firm) for Designworks Homes, Inc. William B. Kircher (Avek LP, LLC) for Columbia House of Brokers Realty, Inc., d/b/a House of Brokers, Inc., d/b/a Jackie Bulgin & Associates.

Companies: Designworks Homes, Inc.; Columbia House of Brokers Realty, Inc., d/b/a House of Brokers, Inc., d/b/a Jackie Bulgin & Associates

Cases: Copyright TechnologyInternet ArkansasNews IowaNews MinnesotaNews MissouriNews NebraskaNews NorthDakotaNews SouthDakotaNews GCNNews