IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—M.D. Fla.: Plans and drawings for roller coaster not protected by copyright law, (Feb 21, 2025)

By Brian Craig, J.D.

The merger doctrine under copyright law bars claiming ownership of the proposed location of the roller coaster inside a mall in Dubia where so few options exist.

In a copyright infringement case involving a vertical roller coaster concept called the “Polercoaster,” the federal district court in Orlando, Florida, has ruled that the plans and drawings are not protected by copyright law. The court held that the specific location of the roller coaster inside a mall in Dubia is not protected under the merger doctrine because so few options to place the ride inside the mall would allow the designer of the roller coaster to merge the expression with the idea, which is contrary to copyright law. The court also concluded that the design elements for the roller coaster’s mounting a track to a circular support structure are unoriginal and not protectable under copyright law (US Thrillrides, LLC v. Intamin Amusement Rides Int. Corp., No. 6:22-cv-02338-CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla. Feb. 19, 2025)).

The case involves a dispute over vertical roller coaster concept called the “Polercoaster” which is a roller coaster that is supported or suspended from a vertical tower instead of moving along a horizontal track. US Thrillrides, LLC and Polercoaster, LLC are two affiliated companies that design, market, and sell amusement rides. The US Thrillrides and Polercoaster sued Intamin Amusement Rides Inc. Corp. Est, a foreign company that designs, engineers, and supplies amusement rides in the federal district court in Florida. The complaint alleges claims for copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, and related breach of contract claims. Specifically, the copyright infringement claims involve design plans for a project in Orlando and another proposed project at a mall in Dubai. The parties moved for summary judgment.

Copyright ownership. The court concluded that the design companies cannot establish ownership over the plans for the proposed roller coaster in Orlando. To establish copyright infringement, a plaintiff must prove: (1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of protectable elements. The certificate of registration for the Orlando proposal lists a non-party, International Amusements Inc., as the author. The Copyright Act provides that a certificate of registration shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate, but it is not conclusive on the copyright ownership issue. The court agreed with the engineering company that there was no transfer of ownership to Polercoaster, and therefore, Polercoaster is not the owner of those documents and the associated copyrights.

Merger doctrine. The court also held that the merger doctrine bars any claims for copyright ownership over the location of the ride inside the mall in Dubai. The merger doctrine provides that expression is not protected in those instances where there is only one or so few ways of expressing an idea that protection of the expression would effectively accord protection to the idea itself. If the location of the ride were to be protectable, that would prohibit the creation of any plans for any ride at the mall in Dubai. With so few options to place the ride inside the mall, allowing the designer of the roller coaster would merge the expression with the idea of creating a ride at the mall in Dubai, which is contrary to copyright law and prohibited under the merger doctrine.

Copyright originality. In addition, the court concluded that the design companies of the proposed roller coaster cannot establish originality to claim copyright protection in the drawings for the roller coaster. The designs that include references to the vertical lift; mounting a track to a circular support structure; and the track having a circular pattern with twists, turns, and horizontal loop inversions; are not unoriginal and therefore not protectable. The design company failed to offer any argument that each of these component elements are original. Thus, all of the copyright infringement claims fail.

Other claims. The court also concluded that the claims for misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of contract fail. Nothing substantive in the technical documents could be used from one project to the next because all of the calculations and considerations are unique. The court also ruled against the design companies on the breach of contract claims insofar as the claims are based on copyright.

The Case is No. 6:22-cv-02338-CEM-DCI.

Judge: Mendoza, C.

Attorneys: Benjamin A. Webster (Morgan & Morgan, PA) for US Thrillrides, LLC. Gerald E. Hawxhurst (Hawxhurst LLP) for Intamin Amusement Rides Int. Corp. Est.

Companies: US Thrillrides, LLC; Polercoaster, LLC; Intamin Amusement Rides Inc. Corp. Est; International Amusements Inc.

Cases: Copyright TradeSecrets FloridaNews GCNNews