[ad_1]
Smith Group File a lawsuit vs. Michigan State this week pure architecta company based in Grand Rapids and Detroit, and Mary Liberty Bed Rehabilitation Hospital, a Grand Rapids medical facility. The dispute is over a hospital expansion project.
The building involved is Jonzechia Children’s Rehabilitation Hospital. The future hospital will be located on Wealthy Street, across from Mary Free Bed’s Grand Rapids campus. The $60 million project will feature a walkway connecting the two buildings, 24 inpatient rooms and “advanced technology” suitable for pediatric services. Construction will begin in 2024 and be completed in 2026.
On March 11, Mary Free Bed initially hired SmithGroup to design the 2022 expansion project. Mary Free Bed terminated its contract with SmithGroup in September 2023. Mary Free Bed subsequently filed the court document on March 11 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. Bed hired Pure Architects for the job in October 2023.
The lawsuit alleges that after Mary Free Bed terminated its construction agreement with SmithGroup, Mary Free Bed “reproduced and published derivative works based on SmithGroup’s designs without permission,” a move that allegedly violated U.S. copyright law, court documents state. “There are significant similarities between SmithGroup’s registered work and Pure Architects’ renderings for the Mary Free Bed Pediatric Rehabilitation expansion,” the document continues.
In a statement shared with onePure Architects said “the allegations against our firm are completely baseless.” The Smith Group declined to comment.
Mary Free Bed first announced its partnership with SmithGroup in December 2022 in a statement on its website. On June 5, 2023, SmithGroup and Mary Free Bed entered into a standard AIA agreement, which sets out the terms and conditions of the parties’ contractual obligations. SmithGroup then provided agreed construction services under contract with Mary Free Bed between January and September 2023.
Following the completion of the design process, Mary Free Bed terminated its architectural agreement with SmithGroup on September 8, 2023. Three days later, on September 11, SmithGroup billed Mary Free Bed for pre-termination services and paid a termination fee.
Documents filed with the court stated that “Mary Free Bed does not agree to pay SmithGroup the license fees specified in Section 9.7 of the Architecture Agreement and authorizes Mary Free Bed to continue to use SmithGroup’s service tools. Therefore, upon termination of the Architecture Agreement by Mary Free Bed, Mary Free Bed has no right to continue to use SmithGroup’s copyrighted service tools,the document states.
In October 2023, one month after terminating its agreement with SmithGroup, Mary Free Bed announced that it had hired Pure Architects to design the expansion. Soon after, Pure Architects released renderings that contained “several elements substantially similar to the Smith Group’s registered work,” the document continues. “For example, the following rendering provided to Mary Free Bed by SmithGroup shows a three-story curved structure located on the northwest corner of the site, with a pedestrian bridge connecting to the third level, generally similar in shape, location, and bridge connection to the image. Pure architect rendering,” the document details.
The lawsuit claims ‘ribbon windows'[s] with fins” [sic] Similar to SmithGroup’s window sketch, Pure Architects has a similar stair layout to the right of the strip window. Finally, SmithGroup claims that the “roof garden” in Pure Architects’ renderings is also similar to their own original design. When asked about the similarities, Mary Free Bed denied continuing to use SmithGroup’s designs, documents show.
In response, Smith Group filed a copyright infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan on March 11 and applied for a preliminary and permanent injunction.
SmithGroup claims: “Since at least October 2023, Mary Free Bed and Pure Architects have improperly reproduced, reproduced, prepared derivative works based on and distributed SmithGroup’s registered works without permission.” SmithGroup therefore argued that it was entitled to damages. The Smith Group also stated that it “has the right to pursue remedies against the seizure and seizure of all materials that infringe the Smith Group’s proprietary copyrights.” Finally, the Smith Group believes that potential confusion over the authorship of the expansion could be financially harmful to the company. Aftermath, the company has offices in Detroit and Ann Arbor.
Pure Architects denies any wrongdoing.The office told one: “As a Grand Rapids-based architecture firm known for its ethical practices and creativity, we never infringe on the work of others. Our design scope for this project was approximately 40 percent smaller than the design solution proposed by SmithGroup, while Still meets all mandatory design standards required by the client and the authorities with jurisdiction over the project. Any suggestion that we are infringing is baseless.”
one Mary Free Bed has been contacted for comment.
A decision has not yet been made in the case.
[ad_2]
Source link