Substantially Similar?

This case hinged on differences vs similarities in the design. It was established early on that Timberpeg drew floor plans and elevations without a timber frame design, and that Vermont Timber Works drew and constructed only a timber frame. The district court in New Hampshire awarded summary judgment in 2005 for Vermont Timber Works, finding essentially that a timber frame alone, with many differences including 25 of 27 post differences, could not infringe on Timberpeg's architectural plans. The 1st Circuit Court in Boston disagreed, and found that a timber frame could infringe on architectural plans. The case was remanded to the district court to be decided by a jury. Due to genuine issues of fact, the Circuit Court found that T-Peg must be given an opportunity to settle the disputes before a jury. It would be up to the jury to decide if the VTW timber frame and Timberpeg's architectural work were substantially similar and if VTW had copied the architectural work.

In the trial, the case revolved around Timberpeg's Demonstrative, and VTW's Demonstrative. Timberpeg contended that because VTW's frame fit within the Timberpeg saltbox design, it was substantially similar to T-Peg's architectural work. Vermont Timber Works contended that because the frames were so different (the t-peg windows didn't fit, the posts were different and the entire timber frame was of a different design) that the VTW design was not a copy of the T-peg work. T-Peg argued that the differences were slight, VTW argued that the differences were substantial. The jury agreed with VTW and found that Vermont Timber Works and Douglas Friant did not copy the Timberpeg design.