The SmithGroup copyright lawsuit over the Grand Rapids children’s hospital accuses Mary Free Bed Rehabilitation Hospital and its replacement architect, Pure Architects, of continuing to use SmithGroup’s copyrighted designs for the Joan Secchia Children’s Rehabilitation Hospital after terminating SmithGroup from the project in September 2023. A federal judge sent the main case to arbitration in May 2024, and in October 2025 SmithGroup filed a second federal suit against a healthcare consultant it says passed its plans to the new architect. Construction has continued throughout.
What Started the Dispute
Mary Free Bed announced in December 2022 that it had hired SmithGroup to design a freestanding pediatric rehabilitation hospital in Grand Rapids, built jointly with Corewell Health’s Helen DeVos Children’s Hospital. The two sides signed a standard AIA agreement on June 5, 2023. Three months later, on September 8, 2023, Mary Free Bed terminated the contract. SmithGroup billed for its work and issued a termination fee on September 11, 2023. By October 2023, Mary Free Bed had retained Pure Architecture and Development, which does business as Pure Architects, to take over.1Crain’s Grand Rapids Business. Architecture Firm Sues Mary Free Bed, Pure Architects Over Pediatric Hospital Designs
Under standard AIA contracts, an architect keeps copyright over the drawings and plans it creates. If the owner ends the contract for convenience, the owner has to pay a licensing fee to go on using those materials. SmithGroup’s position is that Mary Free Bed kept using its “Instruments of Service” without paying that fee, and that Pure Architects then published derivative works based on the same materials.2The Architect’s Newspaper. SmithGroup Sues Pure Architects Over Pediatric Hospital Copyright in Michigan
What SmithGroup Says Was Copied
SmithGroup filed suit on March 11, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The complaint identified two registered works: the “3 Story Block Scheme” (registration VA2-385-812) and the “L Scheme” (registration VA2-385-810). SmithGroup secured registration on March 7, 2024, with an effective date of January 24, 2024.3PACER Monitor. SmithGroup, Inc. v. Pure Architecture and Development, PLLC et al4Crain’s Grand Rapids Business. Mary Free Bed Argues It Owns Disputed Architectural Designs for $60M Pediatric Hospital
The complaint pointed to specific elements in Pure Architects’ renderings that SmithGroup said were substantially similar to its original work:
- A three-story curved building on the northwest corner of the parcel, with a pedestrian bridge connecting at the third level.
- Ribbon windows with fins, and stairs placed next to them.
- Rooftop garden designs.
SmithGroup argued that the similarities could cause confusion in the market and divert future business, because potential clients might mistake the new renderings for its own. It asked for monetary damages and both a preliminary and permanent injunction against further use of the designs.1Crain’s Grand Rapids Business. Architecture Firm Sues Mary Free Bed, Pure Architects Over Pediatric Hospital Designs5WOOD TV. Architecture Firm Accuses Mary Free Bed of Copyright Infringement
How the Defendants Responded
Mary Free Bed said the case “lacks merit.” Pure Architects called the claims “totally without merit” and said its design was about 40 percent smaller in scope than SmithGroup’s original proposal while still meeting the project’s criteria.1Crain’s Grand Rapids Business. Architecture Firm Sues Mary Free Bed, Pure Architects Over Pediatric Hospital Designs
On March 28, 2024, the defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the SmithGroup–Mary Free Bed contract required the dispute to go to arbitration. Mary Free Bed also raised an ownership defense, pointing to contract language stating that the hospital “owns all original copyrighted subject matter authored by” SmithGroup. From Mary Free Bed’s view, the real dispute was a breach of contract over unpaid licensing and termination fees, not copyright infringement.4Crain’s Grand Rapids Business. Mary Free Bed Argues It Owns Disputed Architectural Designs for $60M Pediatric Hospital
The Judge’s Arbitration Ruling
On May 9, 2024, Judge Robert J. Jonker granted the motion to dismiss to the extent that the matter had to go to arbitration under the contract. He dismissed SmithGroup’s preliminary injunction request as moot, but did so without prejudice, so SmithGroup can still seek injunctive relief inside the arbitration itself.6Crain’s Grand Rapids Business. Judge Sends Architectural Copyright Lawsuit Against Mary Free Bed to Arbitration
SmithGroup had argued that Pure Architects, which never signed the original contract, should not be swept into the arbitration clause. Judge Jonker rejected that, finding SmithGroup had agreed to arbitrate and could not sidestep the clause because one defendant was a non-signatory. The court did not rule on whether infringement actually occurred. Jonker stayed the federal case, administratively closed it, and ordered status reports every 90 days. Either side can move to reopen the case once arbitration ends.6Crain’s Grand Rapids Business. Judge Sends Architectural Copyright Lawsuit Against Mary Free Bed to Arbitration
The Second Lawsuit Against Enviah
On October 21, 2025, SmithGroup filed a separate federal suit against Enviah, a Kentwood, Michigan healthcare consulting firm. The complaint alleges Enviah consulted on the Mary Free Bed project and had access to SmithGroup’s copyrighted materials between January and September 2023. After the termination, SmithGroup says, Enviah shared its renderings, surveys, sketches, and diagrams with Pure Architects.7WOOD TV. Architecture Firm Files Another Lawsuit Over Mary Free Bed Children’s Hospital Design
Enviah and Pure Architects are separate companies with no reported corporate link. Enviah had not publicly responded to the allegations as of late October 2025.8Yahoo News. Architecture Firm Files Another Lawsuit Over Mary Free Bed Children’s Hospital Design
The Hospital Is Being Built Anyway
The lawsuits have not stopped the project. Construction started in April 2024 with Granger Construction as the builder and Pure Architects as architect of record. The project now carries a $70 million budget and calls for a 67,000-square-foot facility with 24 private inpatient rooms, specialized therapy gyms, a sky bridge, and indoor and outdoor recreation areas. It is on track to open in fall 2026 and is designed to serve more than 2,500 children per year.9Granger Construction. Mary Free Bed Joan Secchia Children’s Rehabilitation Hospital10Mary Free Bed Rehabilitation Hospital. Joan Secchia Children’s Rehabilitation Hospital
Why This Kind of Copyright Case Is Unusual
Architectural designs have been eligible for copyright in the United States since Congress passed the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act in 1990. Under 17 U.S.C. § 101, an “architectural work” includes the overall form and the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements, but not “individual standard features” such as ordinary windows or doors.11Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 17 U.S.C. § 101 – Definitions
Courts have generally given architectural designs “thin” protection, covering only truly original and creative elements. Features dictated by zoning, building codes, consumer expectations, or standard conventions usually fall outside what copyright protects, which makes these cases hard for plaintiffs. The SmithGroup dispute is a less common variation because it is not about one firm independently arriving at a similar-looking building. It is about an alleged direct handoff of copyrighted plans from one firm to another after a contract ended.
As of mid-2026, the original case against Mary Free Bed and Pure Architects is still in arbitration with no reported outcome, and the Enviah case remains pending in federal court.7WOOD TV. Architecture Firm Files Another Lawsuit Over Mary Free Bed Children’s Hospital Design