#   # &
`% % !&% 
`!:78:,39 94 $9 7.:9 #:0  
`
`%#  %%     55  ! 9 7
`0 ,20 ,  5 
`
`&% $%%$  &#%  !!$
`
`
`
`4:8 ; ,74 09 ,
`
`4 
`
`
`*****************
`
` &$
`
` # % $ % #&%
`*****************
`
`#& 43,/  #,11079   %  %
`$% # 3.33,9 4 147 550,39 .,0 
`438 $ # $  3.33,9 4 147
`550008  # 43,/  #,11079  
`%  % $% # 3.33,9 4 147
`
`550,39 .,0  438 ,708  743 
` &$   &$
`$ # $  3.33,9 4 147 550008
`!,3911
`550,39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
`4 
`
`;
`Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206
`
`2
`
`*****************
`Kohus v. Mariol, et al.
` ! 
`*****************
`
`No. 01-4089
`
`  %# 7.:9 :/0 4:8 4:8
`COUNSEL
`4:8 ,550,8 90 /897.9 .4:798 7,39 41 8:22,7
`:/2039 3 1,;47 41 /0103/,398 43 ,74 ,208 ,74
`,3/ ' 334;,943 083 0103/,398 43 4:88
`ARGUED: Donald J. Rafferty, COHEN, TODD, KITE &
`.,28 147 .4579 317302039 4:8 ,7:08 9,9 90
`STANFORD, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellant. Michael D.
`/897.9 .4:79 ,550/ 90 743 0, 89,3/,7/ ,3/ 9,9 90
`Johns, DINSMORE & SHOHL, Cincinnati, Ohio,
`for
`.4:79 0770/ - 701:83 94 .438/07 05079 9089243 ,;3
`Appellees. ON BRIEF: Donald J. Rafferty, COHEN,
`.43.:/0/ 9,9 90 $9 7.:9 /408 349 ,;0 , 80990/ 0,
`TODD, KITE & STANFORD, Cincinnati, Ohio,
`for
`89,3/,7/ 3 98 ,70, 0 809 4:9 , 89,3/,7/ -04 ,3/ 702,3/
`Appellant. Michael D. Johns, Charles H. Brown IH,
`84 90 /897.9 .4:79 2, ,55 9,9 89,3/,7/
`DINSMORE & SHOHL, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellees.
`
`$9,902039 41 ,.98
`
`OPINION
`4:8 3;0398 ,3/ /0838 .438:207 574/:.98 3.:/3
`./7038 9028 3  0 14720/ 4:8

,74 3.
` 9 43 ,74 ,74 %0 /0;0450/ ,
`ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Louis Kohus
`3:2-07 41 574/:.98 3.:/3 574/:.9 
`  , 5479,-0
`("Kohus") appeals the district court’s grant of summary
`./7038 5,,7/ . 3.:/0/ /7,38 147 , ,9. 9,9
`judgment in favor of defendants John Mariol, James Mariol,
`4:/ 4. 90 :5507 7,8 3 5,.0 147 :80 %8 ,9. 90
`and JVM Innovation & Design ("Defendants"), on Kohus’s
`
`  ,9. ,8 :30 49078 43 90 2,709 3 9,9 9
`claims for copyright infiingement. Kohus argues that the
`,/ 94 155078 47 308 3890,/ 41 430 ,3/ 98 ,;0 9 ,
`district court applied the wrong legal standard, and that the
`94
`8905 1:3.943 9,9 .4:/ 2,0 9 8,107 9,3 .425,7,-0
`court erred by refi.1sing to consider expert testimony. Having
`,9.08
`concluded that the Sixth Circuit does not have a settled legal
`standard in this area, we set out a standard below and remand
`so the district court may apply that standard.
`
`Statement of Facts
`
`
`
`ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2003 FED App. 015OP (6th Cir.)
`  ' #  $ 
`File Name: 03a0150p.06
`#  '  '% 
`$
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`0103/,398
`550008
`
`FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
`
`550, 1742 90 &390/ $9,908 897.9 4:79
`147 90 $4:9073 897.9 41 4 ,9 3.33,9
`4
` $,3/7, $ 0.9 897.9 :/0
`LOUIS M. KOHUS,
`7:0/ 0.02-07   
`Plaintzff-Appellant,
`
`0./0/ ,3/ 0/ ,   
`V
`No. 01-4089
`
`01470 %# ,3/  # 7.:9 :/08
`JOHN V. MARIOL; JAMES F.
` #$%# 01 897.9 :/0
`MARIOL; JVM INNOVATION &
`
`DESIGN,
`
`Defendants-Appellees.
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.
`%0 4347,-0 ,7 $ 4708907 01 &390/ $9,908 897.9 :/0
`No. 99-00831—Sandra S. Beckwith, District Judge.
`147 90 ,89073 897.9 41 039:. 8993 - /083,943
`
`
`
`Argued: December 12, 2002
`
`
`Decided and Filed: May 20, 2003
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before: BATCHELDER and MOORE, Circuit Judges;
`
`Kohus invents and designs consumer products, including
`
`

`
`4 
`
`
`4:8 ; ,74 09 ,
`
`
`
`
`
`4:8 ; ,74 09 ,
`
`4 
`
`
`,74 ,/ 3 8 5,9039 ,55.,9438 ,9902590/ 94
` ::89 41  , 8074:8 /8,7002039 ,/ /0;0450/
`089,-8 , .,2 147 90 ,00/ 31733 ,9. -:9 90
`-09003 8 8,704/078 ,3/ 4:8 ,3/  8:0/
`5,9039 0,2307 ,/ 349 ,40/ 98 ,3/ ,/ 706:70/ 2 94
`,74 ,3/ 8 1,907 ,208 4 ,8 ,84 ,3 3;03947 ,3/
`10 9,9 .,2 805,7,90 ,74 8:-806:039 // 84 94:
`470/ 9 4:8 3 4 .4:79 %0 ,8:9 702,30/
`0 ,203/0/ 90 5,9039 ,55.,943 9 , 8:5502039,
`:37084;0/ 147 8420 8 0,78 94: 90 .4:79 // 47/07 9,9
`31472,943 /8.48:70 89,902039 3 . 0 05,30/ 94 90
`3 90 39072 ,208 84:/ 2,39,3 .43974 41 , 8
`!% 9,9 4:8 ,/ 10/ 8:9 ,,389 2 3 90
`574/:.98 ,3/ ,88098 %0 5,7908 5,790/ ,8 ,3/ ,74
`8:5502039, /8.48:70 ,74
`3.:/0/
`90 473,
`,.90/ ,8 8 1,9078 ,039 3 ,3/3 8 574/:.98 ,3/
`/7,38 41 90 
`  ,9. 94: 0 ,/ 349 ,80/
`,88098
`
`4:88 50728843 %0 !% 30;0790088 700.90/ 90
`3 4;02-07 41   90  9,943 13, 03/0/ 3 ,
`,9.
`70,90/ .,28 3 90 5,9039 ,55.,943 13/3 9,9 90
`809902039 !,7,7,5 94 41 90 809902039 ,7002039
`070 ,39.5,90/ - 90 473, /7,38 41 90 
` 
`574;/0/ 9,9 $ #  070- ,8838 94  &$
`,9.
`, 798 990 ,3/ 3907089 0907 343 47 :3343 9,9
`No. 01-4089
`Kohus v. Mariol, et al.
`3
`4
`0 2, 34 ,;0 47 070,1907 ,.6:70 3 9480    574/:.98
`/03910/ 3 -9     3.:/3 94:9 29,943 ,3
`By August of 1988 a serious disagreement had developed
`  /083 /7,38 ( -9  3.:/0/ 574/:.9 
`
`between KMI’s shareholders, and Kohus and KMI sued
`  43806:039 ,1907 4;02-07 41   ,74 34
`Mariol and his father James (who was also an inventor, and
`4307 ,/ 90 79 94 /0;045 47 2,709 90 
`  ,9.
`worked with Kohus) in Ohio court. The lawsuit remained
`unresolved for some six years, though the court did order that
`3 0-7:,7 41   ,74 4 ,8 .438:93 9
`in the interim James should maintain control of all KMI’s
`;0314 :;030 :739:70 4 ;0314 43 , 5740.9 94
`products and assets. The parties parted ways, and Mariol
`/0;045 , .4,58-0 5,,7/ 1,0/ ;0314 , ,9. /7,3
`acted as his father’s agent in handling KMI’s products and
`03990/ 439 '07843 4  4:8 ,008 9,9 98
`assets.
`/7,3 8 8:-89,39, 82,7 94 90 
`  ,9.
`
`Kohus v. Mariol, et al.
`No. 01-4089
`4:8 10/ 98 ,8:9 43 .94-07   .43903/3
`3907 ,, 9,9 9700 41 ,748 /7,38439 '07843
`Mariol had,
`in his patent applications, attempted to
`4  90   !,9039 /7,3 ,3/ 90 /039.,   !,9039
`establish a claim for the allegedly infringing latch, but the
`/7,3070 8:-89,39, 82,7 94 90 
`  ,9.
`patent examiner had not allowed this and had required him to
`/7,3 ,3/ 9,9 9080 9700 /7,38 ;4,90/ 8 79 94
`file that claim separately. Mariol subsequently did so, though
`.70,90 /07;,9;08 41 90 
`  ,9. /7,3 %0
`he amended the patent application with a supplemental
`0103/,398 8:-806:039 10/ 147 8:22,7 :/2039
`information disclosure statement in which he explained to the
`,7:3 9,9 0;03 1 90 /7,38 070 8:-89,39, 82,7
`PTO that Kohus had filed suit against him.
`In the
`4:88 .,28 84:/ 1, -0.,:80 90 0103/,398 // 349
`supplemental disclosure Mariol
`included the original
`,;0 ,..088 94 90 
`  ,9. /7,3 1907 90 /897.9
`drawings of the 11-KMI86 latch, though he had not asked
`.4:79 14:3/ 9,9 90 // ,;0 ,..088 ,3/ 700.90/ 98 24943
`Kohus’s permission. The PTO nevertheless rejected the
`90 0103/,398 10/ ,34907 24943 147 8:22,7 :/2039
`latch-related claims in the patent application, finding that they
`98 920 ,7:3 9,9 907 /7,38 070 349 8:-89,39,
`were "anticipated" by the original drawings ofthe 11-KMI86
`82,7 94 90 
`  ,9. /7,3 %0 /897.9 .4:79
`latch.
`.425,70/ 90 /7,38 ,3/ 701:80/ 94 .438/07 90
`.431.93 9089243 41 050798 57411070/ - 0,. 8/0 9
`Kohus filed this lawsuit on October 1, 1999, contending
`.43.:/0/ 9,9 34 70,843,-0 9707 41 1,.9 .4:/ 13/ 9,9 90
`inter alia that three of Mariol’s drawings—Joint Version
`0103/,398 /7,38 070 8:-89,39, 82,7 94 90 
`
`No. 2, the ‘285 Patent drawing, and the identical ‘851 Patent
`  ,9. /7,3 ,3/ 0/ 9,9 83.0 4:88 8:-89,39,
`drawing—were substantially similar to the 11-KMI86 latch
`82,79 ,7:2039 1,0/ 8 /07;,9;0 .453 ,7:2039
`drawing, and that these three drawings violated his right to
`84:/ ,84 1, 4:8 34 ,550,8
`create derivatives of the 11-KMI86 latch drawing. The
`Defendants
`subsequently filed for summary judgment,
`arguing that even if the drawings were substantially similar,
`Kohus’s claims should fail because the Defendants did not
`
`have access to the 1 1-KMI86 latch drawing. After the district
`court found that they did have access and rejected this motion,
`the Defendants filed another motion for summary judgment,
`this time arguing that their drawings were not substantially
`similar to the 11-KMI86 latch drawing. The district court
`compared the drawings, and refused to consider
`the
`conflicting testimony of experts proffered by each side.
`It
`concluded that no reasonable trier of fact could find that the
`
`In November of 1994 the KMI litigation finally ended in a
`3 ,3:,7 41   ,74 -0.,20 , .4397,.947 147 4.7,19
`settlement.
`Paragraph two of the settlement agreement
`390757808 3. 070 0 ,8 ,8830/ 94 ,8889 ,34907
`provided that "JAMES MARIOL hereby assigns to KOHUS
`033007 3 /0;0453 , .4,58-0 5,,7/ ,74 ,3/ 8
`all rights, title and interest, whether known or unknown, that
`.4
`033007 8:-806:039 4-9,30/ 94 5,90398 1742 90
`he may now have or hereafter acquire in those .
`.
`. products
`&390/ $9,908 !,9039 ,3/ %7,/02,7 11.0 !%  43
`identified in Exhibit B .
`. ., including without limitation any
`5,,7/8 90 /0;0450/ ,9 4.7,19 !,9039 4   
`.
`. design drawings[.]" Exhibit B included product 11-
`90   !,9039 ,3/ !,9039 4    90  
`KMI86. Consequently, after November of 1994 Mariol no
`!,9039 49 41 90 5,9039 /4.:20398 5708039 /039.,
`longer had the right to develop or market the 1 1-KMI86 latch.
`/7,38 41 , ,9. 9,9 4:8 ,008 ,8 /07;0/ 1742 ,3/
`8:-89,39, 82,7 94 90 
`  ,9. 3  4:8
`In February of 1995 Mariol, who was consulting with
`/8.4;070/ 90   ,3/   !,90398 0 .43/:.93 5,9039
`Evenflo Juvenile Furniture Co. ("Evenflo") on a project to
`80,7.08 43 90 3907309 ,3/ 0 903 ,550/ 147 ,3/ 70.0;0/
`develop a collapsible playyard, faxed Evenflo a latch drawing
`, .0791.,90 41 70897,943 43 90 
`  ,9.
`entitled "Joint Version No. 2." Kohus alleges that this
`drawing is substantially similar to the 11-KMI86 latch.
`
`In January of 1996 Mariol became a contractor for Kolcraft
`Enterprises, Inc., where he was assigned to assist another
`engineer in developing a collapsible playyard. Mariol and his
`co-engineer subsequently obtained two patents from the
`United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") on
`
`

`
`4 
`
`
`4:8 ; ,74 09 ,
`
`
`
`
`
`4:8 ; ,74 09 ,
`
`4 
`
`
`3,88
`
` 0907 90 ,9.08 05.90/ 3 90 0103/,398
`7,38 70 $:-89,39, $2,7 94 90 ,9. 3
`4:88 45790/ 7,3
`
`94 90 ,:947 / ,9   73,    20,38 43 9,9 90
`47 ,8 3/0503/039 .70,90/ - 90 ,:947 ,8 455480/ 94
`.450/ 1742 4907 478 ,3/ 9,9 9 548808808 ,9 0,89 8420
`232, /0700 41 .70,9;9 43806:039 -01470
`.425,73 82,7908 -09003 94 478 , .4:79 84:/ 1789
`/0391 ,3/ 023,90 9480 0020398 9,9 ,70 :3473, ,3/
`90701470 :357490.90/ %8 ,8 90 2094/ :80/ - 90 4:79
`3 089 3 . , 9005430 .425,3 8:0/ , 5:-83
`$:22,7 :/2039 8 574507 1 90 50,/38 /05489438
`.425,3 9,9 ,/ 7057390/ 8420 41 98 /70.947 8938 %0
`
`,38078 94 390774,94708 ,3/ ,/288438 43 10 940907
`4:79 3490/ 9,9 070 1,.9:, .425,9438 8:. ,8 9005430
`9 90 ,11/,;98 1 ,3 84 9,9 9070 8 34 03:30 88:0
`-448 ,70 3;4;0/ 90 43 473, 0020398 ,70 3 800.943
`,8 94 ,3 2,907, 1,.9 ,3/ 9,9 90 24;3 5,79 8 03990/ 94
`,3/ ,77,302039 / ,9  ,3/ .43.:/0/ 9,9 -0.,:80 90
`, :/2039 ,8 , 2,9907 41 , 0/ # ; ! . 3
`.450/ 8938 070 9,03 1742 , ,7/03
`;,709 90 5,08
`.4579 317302039 .,808 7,393 8:22,7 :/2039
`No. 01-4089
`Kohus v. Mariol, et al.
`5
`6
`Kohus v. Mariol, et al.
`No. 01-4089
`/70.947 /0;4/ 41 0;03 90 89089 97,.0 41 .70,9;9 90
`5,79.:,7 3 1,;47 41 , /0103/,39 8 , 57,.9.0 94 -0 :80/
`070 349 473, ,3/ 070 349 03990/ 94 .4579
`85,73 -:9 , .4:79 2, .425,70 90 94 478 ,3/
`57490.943 / ,9   3 8:2 90 4:79 19070/ 4:9 90
`to the author."); id. at 345 ("Original .
`.
`. means only that the
`Analysis
`703/07 , :/2039 147 90 /0103/,39 43 90 74:3/ 9,9 ,8 ,
`:3473, :357490.90/ 0020398 ,3/ 903 /0907230/ 9,9
`work was independently created by the author (as opposed to
`2,9907 41 , , 9707 41 1,.9 4:/ 349 -0 5072990/ 94 13/
`9070 ,8 3493 473, 94 -0 57490.90/
`1. Whether the Latches Depicted in the Defendants ’
`copied fiom other works), and that it possesses at least some
`8:-89,39, 82,79 .,2 ; 34;0 39 307
`Drawings Are Substantially Similar to the Latch in
`minimal degree of creativity.").
`Consequently, before
`548943 3.  /    9 7  
`3 089 9 ,8 , ;03 9,9 90 /0103/,39 ,/ .450/ 90
`Kohus’s Copyrighted Drawing
`comparing similarities between two works a court should first
`.9,9438 42990/ 800 ,84 403 ; &3;078, 9
`5,39118 47 47 .,808 0 90 430 -01470 :8 070 070
`identify and eliminate those elements that are unoriginal and
`$9:/48 3.  /  / 7  0.,:80
`9070 8 34 /70.9 0;/03.0 41 .453 , 5,3911 2,
`A. The Applicable Legal Standard
`therefore unprotected. This was the method used by the Court
`8:-89,39, 82,79 8 .:8942,7 ,3 097020 .480
`089,-8 ,3 310703.0 41 .453 - 843  ,..088 94
`in Feist, in which a telephone company sued a publishing
`6:08943 41 1,.9 8:22,7 :/2039 ,8 97,/943, -003
`90 ,00/
`31730/ 47 - 90 /0103/,398 ,3/  ,
`Summaryjudgment is proper "ifthe pleadings, depositions,
`company that had reprinted some ofits directory listings. The
`17430/ :543 3 .4579 9,943 ( .93 738903 ;
`8:-89,39, 82,79 -09003 90 94 478 ,9 88:0 8
`answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together
`Court noted that where factual compilations such as telephone
`!47907  /     / 7  
`; 110  /     9 7   3 98 .,80
`with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue
`books are involved, the only original elements are in selection
`,..088 ,8 -003 089,-80/ ,3/ 43 8:-89,39, 82,79 8
`as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to
`%4 8:..00/ 3 , .4579 317302039 ,.943 , 5,3911
`and arrangement, id. at 349, and concluded that because the
`,9 88:0
`a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
`In
`2:89 089,-8 9,9 0 47 80 438 90 .45790/ .70,943
`copied listings were taken fiom "a garden-variety white pages
`copyright infiingement cases "granting summary judgment,
`,3/ 9,9 90 /0103/,39 .450/ 9 .,2  / ,9  
`directory, devoid ofeven the slightest trace ofcreativity," they
`4:798 ,;0 089,-80/ ;,74:8 90898 147 90 8:-89,39,
`particularly in favor of a defendant, is a practice to be used
`3 90 5708039 .,80 4:88 430785 41 90 
`  ,9.
`were not original and were not entitled to copyright
`82,79 13/3 %0 97,/943, ,5574,. 8 90 47/3,7
`sparingly," but "a court may compare the two works and
`/7,3 8 349 /85:90/ ,3/ .453 8 90 840 88:0
`protection. Id. at 362-63. In sum, the Court filtered out the
`4-807;07 47 ,:/03.0 9089 . 706:708 90 9707 41 1,.9
`render a judgment for the defendant on the ground that as a
`unoriginal, unprotected elements, and then determined that
`94 ,:0 90 82,7908 41 90 94 478 840 43 90 -,88
`matter of law a trier of fact would not be permitted to find
`49 , .453 8 ,.943,-0 40;07 9 8 ,
`there was nothing original to be protected.
`41 8 309 25708843 ,3/ 94:9 703 43 05079 ,3,88
`substantial similarity." Wickham v. Knoxville Int’! Energy
`.43899:943, 706:702039 9,9 , 5,3911 -733 ,3
`47 /880.943 / ,9   3 .9,943 42990/ 800 ,84 
`Exposition, Inc., 739 F.2d 1094, 1097 (6th Cir. 1984)
`317302039 .,2 2:89 574;0 .453 41 .43899:039
`In Feist it was a given that the defendant had copied the
`'  # ' # # 
`(citations omitted); see also Hoehling v. Universal City
`0020398 41 90 47 9,9 ,70 473, 089 !:-38 3.
`plaintiff s work. For cases like the one before us here, where
` ! #% V   ( (   0703,1907 #
`Studios, Inc., 618 F.2d 972, 977 (2d Cir. 1980) ("Because
`; #:7, %0 $07; 4  &$     025,88
`there is no direct evidence of copying, a plaintiff may
`%070 ,70 , 3:2-07 41 /11.:908 9 98 ,5574,. 800 
`substantial similarity is customarily an extremely close
`,//0/ 800 ,84 / ,9   73,9 702,38 90 830 6:,
`establish "an inference of copying by showing (1) access to
`# V   ( ( ,3/ .4:798 ,;0 :3/079,03 ;,74:8
`question of fact, summary judgment has traditionally been
`343 41 .4579 ,..47/3 .4579 57490.943 2,
`the allegedly-infringed work by the defendant(s) and (2) a
`24/1.,943895., - ,//3 , 5747 8905 9,9 /408
`frowned upon in copyright litigation[.]") (citing Arnstein v.
`0903/ 43 94 9480 .425430398 41 , 47 9,9 ,70 473,
`substantial similarity between the two works at issue." Ellis
`Porter, 154 F .2d 464, 468 & 474 (2d Cir. 1946)).
`v. Diflie, 177 F.3d 503, 506 (6th Cir. 1999).
`In this case
`access has been established, and only substantial similarity is
`at issue.
`
` %0 55.,-0 0, $9,3/,7/
`
`To succeed in a copyright infringement action, a plaintiff
`must establish that he or she owns the copyrighted creation,
`and that the defendant copied it. Wickham, 739 F.2d at 1097.
`In the present case Kohus’s ownership of the 1 1-KMI86 latch
`
`Courts have established various tests for the substantial
`
`

`
`4 
`
`
`4:8 ; ,74 09 ,
`
`
`
`
`
`4:8 ; ,74 09 ,
`
`4 
`
`
`%4: 90 $9 7.:9 ,8 349 ,/4590/ , 850.1. 9089 147
`,4 05079 9089243 ,3/ ,3,9. /880.943 $00 738903
`8:-89,39, 82,79 90 .,80 4347,2 4/08 3. ;
` / ,9  /893:83 94 088039, 0020398 3 ,
`3/:8974 49;0 475   /   9 7  
`8:-89,39, 82,79 8:9, 9,9 /0103/,39 .450/ 1742
`4-6:0 03/4780/ , 94
`5,79 9089 82,7 94 9,9 3 738903
`5,39118 .45790/ 47 ,3/ - 9,9 90 .453
`90 1789 8905 ,48 05079 0;/03.0 ,3/ /880.943 ,3/ 90
`,88:23 9 94 -0 574;0/ 039 84 1,7 ,8 94 .43899:90
`80.43/ 706:708 90 9707 41 1,.9 94 0;,:,90 82,79 1742 90
`2574507 ,557457,943,3/ 4/3 9,9 05079 9089243
`;05439 41 90 47/3,7 4-807;07 %0 .,80 250/ 90 1789
`8 ,557457,90 :3/07 90 1789 5743 -:9 349 :3/07 90 80.43/
`8905 03 9 ,5574;0/ 90 :80 41 05079 9089243 3
`-0.,:80 90 /090723,943 8 94 -0 2,/0 1742 90 ;05439
`/0907233 82,79, 57,.9.0
`9,9 4:/ -0
`41 90 47/3,7 4-807;07 $/ ,79 74119 %00;843
`
`!74/8 3. ; .43,/8 475  /   
`3,557457,90 1 43 90 97,/943, 47/3,7 4-807;07 9089
` 9 7  .70,93 ,3 ,9073,90 94
`5,79 9089 90
`070 3;4;0/ $00 / ,9    0 13/ 34 07747 3
`09738. 9089 3 . 05079 9089243 ,3/ ,3,9.
`5072993 8:. 05079( 9089243 800 ,84  # V
`/880.943 2, -0 02540/ 94 05 90 :7 /0907230
`  ( ( .93 3907 ,, 4347,2 4/08 94
`No. 01-4089
`Kohus v. Mariol, et al.
`7
`8
`Kohus v. Mariol, et al.
`No. 01-4089
`0907 9070 ,8 -003 .453 41 90 05708843 41 ,3 /0,
`8:-89,39,90 90 .,2 9,9  :(3/07 90 738903 /4.9730   
`7,907 9,3 :89 90 /0, 9801 ,3/ 90 39738. 9089 3
`708479 2, 574507 -0 2,/0 94 05079 ,3,88 ( 9
`. 05079 9089243 8 349 ,557457,90 -0.,:80 90 9707 41
`03/4780/ 90 80.43/ 8905 90 47/3,7 4-807;07 9089 2470
`allow expert testimony and analytic dissection. SeeArnstein,
`Though the Sixth Circuit has not adopted a specific test for
`1,.9 2:89 /0907230 8:-89,39, 82,79 1742 90 ;05439
`4;079 %0 6:08943 41 317302039 ,8 /0503/039 :543
`154 F.2d at 468 (distinguishing two essential elements in a
`substantial similarity, the case Monogram Models, Inc. v.
`41 90 47/3,7 70,843,-0 507843
`0907 90 47/3,7 70,843,-0 507843 4:/ 1, 94
`substantial similarity suit—"(a) that defendant copied from
`Industro Motive Corp., 492 F .2d 1281 (6th Cir. 1974),
`/1107039,90 -09003 90 94 478 4347,2 4/08
`plaintiffs copyrighted work and (b)
`that
`the copying
`obliquely endorsed a two-part test, similar to that in Arnstein:
`%0 $9 7.:9 ,8 9:8 1,7 349 ,/4590/ , 850.1. 9089
`3.   / ,9   6:493 ,28 ; ,, 1 4
`(assuming it to be proved) went so far as to constitute
`the first step allows expert evidence and dissection, and the
`147 /0907233 8:-89,39, 82,79
`3 .4579
` /  9 7  
`improper appropriation"—and holding that expert testimony
`second requires the trier of fact to evaluate similarity from the
`317302039 .,808 8  / ,9   3 ,3/ 98 .,80
`is appropriate under the first prong, but not under the second
`viewpoint ofthe ordinary observer. The case implied the first
`57080398 ,3 455479:39 94 /4 84 :7 .7907, 3 089,-83
` 94
`8905 ,5574,. 9,9 70.43.08 089 ,3/ 4347,2
`because the determination is to be made from the viewpoint
`step when it approved the use of expert
`testimony in
`, 9089 ,70 1,91:3088 94 90 ,94 089 ,3/ 94 4:7 5747
`4/08 8 14:3/ 3 $9:7/, ; &390/ 7,- 27,908   /
`of the ordinary observer); Sid & Marty Kroflt Television
`determining
`similarity—a practice
`that would
`be
`  7   90 1789 8905 706:708 /03913
`.,80,
`3841,7 ,8
`9
`8 .43889039 9 089,3/
`Prods., Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 562 F.2d 1157, 1163—64
`inappropriate if only the traditional ordinary observer test
`47,-9
`were involved.
`See id. at 1286 ("We find no error in
`(9th Cir. 1977) (creating an alternate two-part test:
`the
`"extrinsic test," in which expert
`testimony and analytic
`permitting such [expert] testimony."); see also 4 NIMMER §
`089 ,8 0 ,;0 8003 1,;478 ,3 ,5574,. 9,9 3;4;08
`dissection may be employed to help the jury "determine
`13.03[E][3]
`(citing,
`inter alia, Monogram Models,
`to
`70/:.3 90 .425,7843 94 0020398 9,9 ,70 473, %0
`
`%0 $9:7/, .,80 1440/ 90 ,-897,.943
`197,943
`.425,7843
`substantiate the claim that "[u]nder the Arnstein doctrine .
`.
`.
`whether there has been copying of the expression of an idea
`.,80 /408 349 203943 90 47/3,7 4-807;07 47 ,:/03.0 9089
`,5574,. 9,03 3 4:397 /8  9 $.8 3. ; $003 /
`rather than just the idea itself’; and the "intrinsic test," in
`resort may properly be made to expert analysis[.]").
`It
`,3/ 9 8 349 30.088,7 4890 94 9,9 9089 -:9,8 #
`  9 7   . 9801 ,/4590/ 147 47/3,7 5:754808 90
`which expert testimony is not appropriate because the trier of
`endorsed the second step, the ordinary observer test, more
`4-807;089 706:708 9,9 .4:798 ,8 98 6:08943 408 90
`850.,0/ .425:907
`8419,70 .4579 317302039 9089 809 1479 3
`425:907 884.8 39 3. ; 9, 3.  /   / 7  
`fact must determine substantial similarity from the viewpoint
`overtly: "The question of infringement was dependent upon
`,:/03.0 9089 ;0 .439039 94 90 4:798 /013943 41
`$00 4:397 /8 / ,9   3 %0 9, .,80 3 9:73 -47740/
`of the ordinary reasonable person.)
`‘whether the ordinary reasonable person would fail
`to
`31733 .43/:.9 ,8 .453 41 .43899:039 0020398 41 90
`98 1472:,943 41 98 2094/ 1742 !74108847 2207 $00 425:907
`differentiate between the two works."' Monogram Models,
`47 9,9 ,70 473,  # V   ( ( -( 0
`884.8 39  / ,9 !74108847 2207 8:0898 ,3/ 0
`The Sixth Circuit has thus far "not adopted a specific test
`Inc., 492 F.2d at 1286 (quoting Williams v. Kaag Mfg. Co.,
`,700 9 #8 .43.:843 94 90 09039 9,9 90
`03/4780 , 8:..088;0 19073 2094/ 147 805,7,93 57490.9,-0
`for
`determining
`substantial
`similarity in
`copyright
`338 F.2d 949 (9th Cir. 1964)).
`,:/03.0 9089 17:897,908 9,9 4, 9 2:89 -0 /8.,7/0/
`05708843 1742 343
`57490.9,-0 2,907,  # V   (
`infringement cases," Ellis, 177 F.3d at 506 n.2, and this case
`/08.7-3 90 9089 ,;/ 2207 09 ,  $97:.9:70/ 5574,. 94
`290/ 47 9,470/ 94 2009 90 $:57020 4:798 1472:,943
`3,3 90 $:-89,39, $2,79 41 425:907 $419,70 3 4579
`presents an opportunity to do so. Our criteria in establishing
`A two-step approach that reconciles Feist and Monogram
`/
`317302039 ,808  #  $%    800 ,84  #
`a test are faithfulness to the law—to Feist, and to our prior
`Models is found in Sturdza v. UnitedArab Emirates, 281 F.3d
`V   ( ( -( 8:0893 9,9 .4:798 ,55 90 9089 3 , 8:-89,39,
`caselaw insofar as
`it
`is consistent with Feist—and
`1287 (D.C. Cir. 2002) :
`the first step "requires identifying
`82,79 .,808 ,3/ 349 2070 3 .425:907 8419,70 .,808
`
`workability.
`
`Feist, as we have seen, favors an approach that involves
`reducing the comparison to elements that are original. The
`case does not mention the ordinary observer or audience test
`
`1The Sturdza case followed the "abstraction-filtration—comparison"
`approach taken in Country Kids ’N City Slicks, Inc. v. Sheen, 77 F.3d
`1280 (10th Cir. 1996), which itself adopted for ordinary purposes the
`
`

`
`4 
`
`
`4:8 ; ,74 09 ,
`
`
`
` 4:8 ; ,74 09 ,
`
`4 
`
`
`. ,850.98 41 90 ,79898 47 1 ,3 ,70 57490.9-0 -
`.4579 / ,9   90 80.43/ 3;4;08 /0907233
`0907 90 ,00/ 31733 47 8 8:-89,39,
`82,7 94 57490.9-0 0020398 41 90 ,79898 47 / ,9
`  0 ,5574;0 98 2094/ ,3/ ,/459 9
`
`0,250 ,3 39, /08.75943 41 90 
`  ,9. 4:/
`0 -0 6:90 /09,0/, 8900
`03.480/ 30 02543
`94 -,3,3,
`8,50/ 155078 9,9 .7488 4;07 430 ,34907 ,3/
`8,70 , .42243 5;49 5439 0 8.88478 0,. 15507 1993
`394 , 349. 43 90 7, ,3/ 84 43 3 8:..088;0 ,-897,.9438
`/09,8 0 90 8,50 41 90 8900 03.48:70 4:/ 1, ,,
`0,;3 90 088039,8 5,79.:,7 90 /4:-0
`30/ 10,9:70
`39,.9
`
`%0 08803.0 41 90 1789 8905 8 94 1907 4:9 90 :3473,
`:357490.9-0 00203980020398
`9,9 070 349
`3/0503/039 .70,90/ - 90 3;03947 ,3/ 9,9 5488088 34
`
`09 3 .,808 0 98 430 9,9 3;4;0 , 1:3.943, 4-0.9
`232, /0700 41 .70,9;9 800 089  &$ ,9
`7,907 9,3 , .70,9;0 47 9 8 30.088,7 94 023,90 9480
`974: , ;,709 41 ,3,808 9 8 ,42,9. 94 -03
`0020398 /.9,90/ - 011.03. $00 ,07 ; $0/03  
`9 9,9 2070 ,-897,.9 /0,8 ,70 349 57490.9-0 -:9 90
`&$     (070 90 ,79 9,9 , 8.03.0 -44(
`05708843 41 ,3 /0, 8 $00 ,07 ; $903  &$  
`90,.08 .,3349 -0 :80/ 94:9 02543 90 2094/8 ,3/
`   &30 , 5,9039 , .4579 ;08 34 0.:8;0
`No. 01-4089
`Kolzus v. Mariol, et al.
`9
`10 Kolzus v. Mariol, et al.
`No. 01-4089
`/,7,28 :80/ 94 :897,90 90 -44 47 8:. ,8 ,70 82,7 94
`79 94 90 ,79 /8.480/ 57490.943 8 ;03 43 94 90
`902 8:. 2094/8 ,3/ /,7,28 ,70 94 -0 .438/070/ ,8
`05708843 41 90 /0,349 90 /0, 9801  &$
`which aspects of the artist’s work, if any, are protectible by
`example, an initial description of the 11-KMI86 latch would
`30.088,7 3./0398 94 90 ,79 ( 025,88 ,//0/ %4 98
`V  - 3 34 .,80 /408 .4579 57490.943 147 ,3 473,
`copyright," id. at 1295; the second "involves determining
`likely be quite detailed—a steel-enclosed hinge employing
`03/ 90 20707 /4.9730 089,-808 9,9  (03 9070 8
`47 41 ,:94785 0903/ 94 ,3 /0, ( 1903 051: 3
`whether the allegedly infringing work is
`‘substantially
`two banana-shaped flippers that cross over one another and
`088039, 43 430 , 94 057088 ,3 /0, 90 /0, ,3/ 98
`/893:83 -09003 90 94 8 :/0 0,730/ ,3/8
`similar’ to protectible elements of the artist’s work," id. at
`share a common pivot point like scissors, each flipper fitting
`05708843 ,70 3805,7,-0 0 90 2070( ,3/ .4579 8
`1,24:8 ,-897,.9438 9089 1472:,90/ 3 , .,80 /8.:883
`into a notch on the rail, and so on. In successive abstractions
`1296. We approve this method, and adopt it.
`34 -,7 94 .453 9,9 05708843 43.7090 ,. 4 ;
`5,8
`details like the shape of the steel enclosure would fall away,
`,88. ,3 73,20398 3.  /    89 7
`leaving the essentials, particularly the double-hinged feature,
`  3 90 5708039 .,80 05079 9089243  0 -0
`intact.
`706:70/ 94 089,-8 ,9 0020398 1 ,3 ,70 30.088,7 94
`90 1:3.943 41 ,3 ,9. /0830/ 147 90 :5507 ,72 41 ,
`Next, in cases like this one, that involve a functional object
`.4,58-0 5,,7/
`rather than a creative work, it is necessary to eliminate those
`elements dictated by efficiency. See Baker v. Selden, 101
`9 8 ,84 25479,39 94 1907 4:9 8.0308 , 1,70 9480
`U.S. 99, 103 (1879) ("[W]here the art [that a science book]
`0020398 9,9 144 3,9:7, 1742 90 478 9020 7,907
`teaches cannot be used without employing the methods and
`9,3 1742 90 ,:9478 .70,9;9  # V   ( (
`diagrams used to illustrate the book, or such as are similar to
`47 0020398 9,9 ,70 /.9,90/ - 09073, 1,.9478 8:. ,8
`them, such methods and diagrams are to be considered as
`5,79.:,7 -:83088 57,.9.08 425:907 29 8889,3.0
`necessary incidents to the art[.]") (emphasis added). To this
`4 ; #4-079  0,8974 3.  /     9 7
`end, the merger doctrine establishes that "[w]hen there is
`  3 90 5708039 .,80 5488-0 09073, .438/07,9438
`essentially only one way to express an idea, the idea and its
`.4:/ 3.:/0 89,3/,7/ 3/:897 57,.9.08 147 .43897:.93
`expression are inseparable [i.e., they merge,] and copyright is
`,9.08 47 8,109 89,3/,7/8 089,-80/ - 47,3,9438 0
`no bar to copying that expression." Concrete Mach. Co. v.
`90 207.,3 $4.09 147 %0893 ,907,8 ,3/ 90 :;030
`Classic Lawn Ornaments, Inc., 843 F.2d 600, 606 (1st Cir.
`!74/:.98 ,3:1,.9:7078 884.,943
`1988).
`In the present case expert testimony will likely be
`required to establish what elements, if any, are necessary to
`the function of any latch designed for the upper arm of a
`collapsible playyard.
`
`The essence of the first step is to filter out the unoriginal,
`&543 ,3 47 ,3/ 0850., :543 , 5, , 70,9
`unprotectible
`elements—elements
`that were
`not
`3:2-07 41 5,990738 41 3.70,83 0307,9  19
`independently created by the inventor, and that poss