The SmithGroup hospital copyright lawsuit is a federal dispute in which the architecture firm SmithGroup accuses Mary Free Bed Rehabilitation Hospital and Pure Architects of continuing to use its copyrighted designs for a $70 million pediatric hospital in Grand Rapids after the hospital terminated SmithGroup’s contract without paying a required license fee. SmithGroup filed the original case in March 2024 and added a second suit in October 2025 against Enviah, a consulting firm it says funneled the designs to the replacement architect. The original case has been moved to arbitration; the Enviah case is pending.
What SmithGroup Is Claiming
Mary Free Bed hired SmithGroup in December 2022 to design the Joan Secchia Children’s Rehabilitation Hospital, then terminated that contract in September 2023 and hired Pure Architects the following month.1WOOD TV. Architecture Firm Files Another Lawsuit Over Mary Free Bed Children’s Hospital Design2PACER Monitor. SmithGroup, Inc v. Pure Architecture and Development, PLLC et al3Crain’s Grand Rapids. Architecture Firm Sues Mary Free Bed, Pure Architects Over Pediatric Hospital Designs
The firm’s theory is built on its contract. SmithGroup says its plans, renderings, sketches, and site diagrams are protected “Instruments of Service” under federal copyright law and the Architecture Agreement. It registered the materials with the U.S. Copyright Office effective January 24, 2024.4Crain’s Grand Rapids. Mary Free Bed Argues It Owns Disputed Architectural Designs for $60M Pediatric Hospital Under Section 9.7 of the contract, SmithGroup argues, Mary Free Bed could keep using the drawings after termination only by paying a licensing fee plus eight percent of the firm’s total fee. The complaint says neither payment was made.3Crain’s Grand Rapids. Architecture Firm Sues Mary Free Bed, Pure Architects Over Pediatric Hospital Designs
SmithGroup alleges Mary Free Bed then passed the copyrighted materials to Pure Architects, which produced renderings “substantially similar” to the originals. The complaint points to specific overlapping features: a three-story curved structure on the northwest corner of the site, a pedestrian bridge at the third level, ribbon windows with decorative fins, stair placement to the right of those windows, and rooftop gardens.5The Architect’s Newspaper. SmithGroup Sues Pure Architects Pediatric Hospital Copyright Michigan SmithGroup also argues the resemblance could confuse potential clients about authorship and cost it work in the pediatric rehabilitation market.3Crain’s Grand Rapids. Architecture Firm Sues Mary Free Bed, Pure Architects Over Pediatric Hospital Designs
How Mary Free Bed and Pure Architects Have Responded
Both defendants reject the claims. A Mary Free Bed spokesperson called the case lacking in merit and pointed to language in the SmithGroup contract stating that the hospital “owns all original copyrighted subject matter authored by” the firm.4Crain’s Grand Rapids. Mary Free Bed Argues It Owns Disputed Architectural Designs for $60M Pediatric Hospital Pure Architects called the allegations “totally without merit” and said its design is roughly 40 percent smaller in scope than SmithGroup’s original proposal.6WOOD TV. Architecture Firm Accuses Mary Free Bed of Copyright Infringement
On March 28, 2024, Mary Free Bed asked U.S. District Judge Robert Jonker to dismiss the case or send it to arbitration. Its motion argued that the dispute is really about contract termination and unpaid fees, which the agreement requires be resolved in binding arbitration, and that SmithGroup obtained its copyright registration only four days before suing, well after the contract had ended.4Crain’s Grand Rapids. Mary Free Bed Argues It Owns Disputed Architectural Designs for $60M Pediatric Hospital
The Second Lawsuit Against Enviah
On October 21, 2025, SmithGroup filed a separate federal copyright infringement suit against Enviah, a Kentwood, Michigan healthcare consulting firm. The complaint alleges Enviah accessed project renderings, surveys, sketches, and other materials between January and September 2023 while consulting on the hospital project, then improperly shared those copyrighted designs with Pure Architects after Mary Free Bed cut ties with SmithGroup.1WOOD TV. Architecture Firm Files Another Lawsuit Over Mary Free Bed Children’s Hospital Design Enviah describes itself as a data-driven consulting firm that helps health systems with space, operations, and care delivery, and lists Mary Free Bed as a client.7Enviah. Enviah Home
Why the Contract Language Matters
Federal copyright law has protected architectural works since the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990, which covers “the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings.” Protection extends to overall form and the arrangement of spaces and elements, but not to individual standard features like a generic doorway or hallway.8Illinois Law Review. Architectural Copyright and the Filtration Test
What usually decides these disputes is who holds the copyright after the contract ends. American Institute of Architects guidance treats it as standard for the architect to retain copyright while granting the owner a project-specific license, with that license conditioned on full payment.9American Institute of Architects. Understanding Copyright Protection for Architects A federal court in the Sixth Circuit, which includes Michigan, applied that logic in Eberhard Architects v. Bogart Architecture, holding that when a contract ties the license to use “Instruments of Service” to payment, terminating the contract for nonpayment also ends the license, and any further use of the drawings is infringement.10American Institute of Architects. Federal Court Sides With Architect in Payment Dispute
That is essentially SmithGroup’s theory: Mary Free Bed lost its license when it terminated the contract without paying the required fees. The hospital counters that the contract assigned it ownership of the copyrighted material outright. Reading that clause is a contract question, which is part of why the defendants pressed to move the fight into arbitration.
Where the Cases Stand
As of late 2025, the original federal lawsuit against Mary Free Bed and Pure Architects has been sent to arbitration. The October 2025 suit against Enviah remains pending in U.S. District Court.1WOOD TV. Architecture Firm Files Another Lawsuit Over Mary Free Bed Children’s Hospital Design Neither case has produced a ruling on the merits.
Construction has not stopped for any of it. The Joan Secchia Children’s Rehabilitation Hospital broke ground in August 2024 and, as of March 2025, was reported to be moving quickly and on track for a 2026 opening.11Mary Free Bed. Breaking Ground to Brighter Futures for Michigan’s Children12Wood Radio. Construction Coming Along Quickly on Joan Secchia Children’s Rehab Hospital