Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
126 F.3d 365 (1997)
- Written by Elliot Stern, JD
Facts
In August 1988, Computer Associates International, Inc. (Computer Associates) (plaintiff) sued Altai, Inc. (defendant) in the US for copyright infringement. Computer Associates alleged that Altai had violated its copyright by copying parts of a Computer Associates program into Altai’s own OSCAR 3.4 and OSCAR 3.5 programs. While the case was pending, Computer Associates filed a copyright claim in France, alleging that Altai and Altai’s French distributor had imported OSCAR 3.5 into France for distribution in violation of Computer Associates’ French copyright. In August 1991, the US court held that Altai’s OSCAR 3.4 violated Computer Associates’ copyright but OSCAR 3.5 was sufficiently different from the Computer Associates program so as not to violate the copyright. The French court subsequently ruled that OSCAR 3.5 did not violate Computer Associates’ French copyright. Computer Associates appealed the French decision. Altai asked the US court to enjoin Computer Associates from pursuing the litigation in France on the grounds that the decision of the US court that OSCAR 3.5 did not violate Computer Associates’ copyright precluded the French litigation. The court dismissed the motion, and Altai appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Walker. J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.