Instinet Incorporated et al v. Ariel (UK) Limited
| Instinet Incorporated, Instinet Holdings Incorporated, Instinet Group, LLC and Instinet, LLC |
| Ariel (UK) Limited |
| 1:2008cv07141 |
| August 11, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Contract: Other Office |
| New York |
| Unassigned |
| Defendant |
| Diversity |
| 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
64
OPINION AND ORDER granting re: 54 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Instinet Holdings Incorporated, Instinet, LLC, Instinet Group, LLC, Instinet Incorporated. For the above stated reasons and for the reasons set forth in the Courts Opinion and O rder dated March 5, 2010, the Court holds that Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment with respect to their third and fourth claims for declaratory relief. The Court GRANTS declaratory judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, and DECLARES that (1) Ariel has no rights in or to Instinet's current technology or software; and (2) Ariel does not have any of the rights claimed in the Demand Letter, whether pursuant to the 1972 Agreement, the 1975 Cable Agreement, the 1975 Agreement, or otherwise. Be cause the grant of summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs forecloses the relief requested by Defendant in its Answer, the Court denies Defendants' claims for relief. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. (Signed by Judge John F. Keenan on 9/20/2012) (cd)
|
|
Filing
53
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER:#100820 re: 45 MOTION to Amend/Correct Answer. filed by Ariel (UK) Limited. For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's motion is denied. Instinet entities ("Instinet") is hereby directed to file a motion for summary judgment within two weeks. Ariel UK Limited ("Ariel") is directed to respond to the motion within 30 days, and Instinet is ordered to reply to Ariel's submission within 15 days. (Signed by Judge John F. Keenan on 9/26/2011) (jfe) Modified on 9/26/2011 (jab).
|
|
Filing
41
Memorandum Opinion & Order; that Ariel now moves for reconsideration of the March 5 Order under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 6.3 of the Southern District of New York. Ariels motion is denied. The parties are directed to appear for a conference on September 8, 2010, at 11:30 a.m. to discuss the status of the case and Instinet's unresolved claims for relief. (Signed by Judge John F. Keenan on 7/6/10) (pl)
|
|
Filing
29
OPINION AND ORDER. #98624 Instinet's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. The Court holds that the 1975 Agreement is integrated, unambiguous, and terminated the parties' prior agreement In its entirety. The 197 5 Agreement did not provide Ariel perpetual rights to technology developed by Instinet. The unambiguous language of the 1975 Agreement and the undisputed facts limit Ariel's rights in the computerized securities trading technology developed by I nstinet to the technology developed on or before June 30, 1976, the date the working relationship between Ariel and Instinet ceased. Ariel's first and second prayers for relief are granted. Because it remains an issue of fact whether Instinet� 39;s current securities trading platform still incorporates components of the roughly 35-year-old computer technology to which Ariel has licensing rights under the 1975 Agreement, Instinet' s third and fourth prayers for relief are denied. (Signed by Judge John F. Keenan on 3/5/10) (djc) Modified on 3/5/2010 (djc). Modified on 3/8/2010 (ajc).
|
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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
