Atlantis Information Technology, GmbH v. CA, Inc.

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York Eastern District Atlantis Information Technology, GmbH v. CA, Inc.

Atlantis Information Technology, GmbH v. CA, Inc.

Case Number:	2:2006cv03921
Filed:	August 14, 2006
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Central Islip Office
Presiding Judge:	Arthur D. Spatt
Presiding Judge:	William D. Wall
Nature of Suit:	Copyright
Cause of Action:	17 U.S.C. § 101 Copyright Infringement
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
September 28, 2011	Filing 163 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 108 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 113 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 118 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; granting 156 Motion to Strike. For the foregoin g reasons, Atlantis' motion for partial summary judgment on the liability aspect of its breach of contract claim (Docket Entry 113) is DENIED. Its motion for summary judgment on CA's affirmative defense (Docket Entry 108) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, it is granted as to CA's theory that it would have begun developing software similar to E/NAT as soon as it learned of Atlantis' alleged breach. It is also granted to the extent that it seeks to prevent CA from asserting its affirmative defense or counterclaims for the period prior to the date of the Settlement Agreement. It is denied in all other respects. CA's motion for partial summary judgment as to the meanings of "install" and &qu ot;use" (Docket Entry 118) is DENIED AS MOOT inasmuch as the Court ruled on these issues in the context of Atlantis' motion for partial summary judgment on its breach of contract claim. Atlantis' letter motion to preclude further testimony of Dieter Storr (Docket Entry 156) is GRANTED. CA is precluded from offering Storr's testimony at trial. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 9/28/11. C/ECF (Valle, Christine)

Date Filed

Document Text

September 28, 2011

Filing 163 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 108 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 113 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 118 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; granting 156 Motion to Strike. For the foregoin g reasons, Atlantis' motion for partial summary judgment on the liability aspect of its breach of contract claim (Docket Entry 113) is DENIED. Its motion for summary judgment on CA's affirmative defense (Docket Entry 108) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, it is granted as to CA's theory that it would have begun developing software similar to E/NAT as soon as it learned of Atlantis' alleged breach. It is also granted to the extent that it seeks to prevent CA from asserting its affirmative defense or counterclaims for the period prior to the date of the Settlement Agreement. It is denied in all other respects. CA's motion for partial summary judgment as to the meanings of "install" and &qu ot;use" (Docket Entry 118) is DENIED AS MOOT inasmuch as the Court ruled on these issues in the context of Atlantis' motion for partial summary judgment on its breach of contract claim. Atlantis' letter motion to preclude further testimony of Dieter Storr (Docket Entry 156) is GRANTED. CA is precluded from offering Storr's testimony at trial. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 9/28/11. C/ECF (Valle, Christine)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Atlantis Information Technology, GmbH v. CA, Inc.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?