C Tek Software, Inc. v. New York State Business Venture Partnership
United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Hampshire
127 B.R. 501 (1991)

- Written by Kelli Lanski, JD
Facts
C Tek Software, Inc. (plaintiff) owned software called ClienTrak, which was used by banks and insurance companies to store information and generate correspondence. In 1987, C Tek sold a security interest in ClienTrak’s source code and copyrights from 1983 through 1987 to New York State Business Venture Partnership (NYSBVP) (defendant). In 1988, C Tek entered into a distribution agreement with Intelligent Investment Systems (IIS), giving IIS the right to produce and distribute derivative versions of ClienTrak without limitation. IIS made several improvements to ClienTrak after executing the agreement, including fixing software bugs impeding the program’s functionality, making the interface more user friendly, and improving the software’s importing, reporting, and communications functions. C Tek filed for bankruptcy in 1989 and sued NYSBVP as part of the bankruptcy proceedings to determine the validity of certain liens, including NYSBVP’s interest, if any, in the derivative versions of ClienTrak that IIS created. NYSBVP argued that its security interest in C Tek meant that NYSBVP owned the rights to any derivative works IIS created up until the filing of the bankruptcy action. IIS argued that it owned the copyright for its derivative works.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Yacos, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.