Page:International Code Council v. UpCodes (2020).pdf/99

 Cir. 2004). In Veeck, the en banc Fifth Circuit addressed only the posting of model codes that were adopted verbatim by local jurisdictions, which the plaintiff identified as the building codes of those specific jurisdictions. The Fifth Circuit made clear that it was not addressing the posting of model codes as model codes, or copying that intermingled adopted code text with unadopted model code text. By contrast, Defendants here may have intermingled state code text with unenacted model code text to various degrees, and they may have posted the I-Codes as model codes rather than expressed substantially identical laws. Because the facts of this case are significantly different from those of Veeck and may compel a different result, the issues raised are not identical. Even if they were, the Court concludes that application of collateral estoppel would not be fair under the circumstances.

G. WILLFULNESS

Because ICC’s Motion must be denied for the many reasons explained above, it is not yet clear that Defendants are actually liable for infringement. Accordingly, the Court need not address ICC’s remedy-related requests for a permanent injunction and a finding of willfulness that might entitle ICC to heightened