Lotus Development v. Borland
Opinion
USCA1 Opinion
December 28, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
United States Court of Appeals United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit For the First Circuit
____________________
No. 95-1793
IN RE: BORLAND INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Petitioner,
_____________________
No. 95-1885
LOTUS DEVELOPMENT,
Plaintiff, Appellee,,
v.
BORLAND INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CONSOLIDATED WITH
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
[Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Steven Brower with whom Joel D. Covelman, Ginsburg, Stephan, ______________ _________________ ___________________
Oringher & Richman, Peter E. Gelhaar, Katherine L. Parks, and ____________________ __________________ ____________________
Donnelly, Conroy & Gelhaar were on brief for appellant/petitioner. __________________________
Henry B. Gutman with whom Kerry L. Konrad, Jeffrey E. Ostrow, ________________ ________________ __________________
Lori E. Lesser, Baker & Botts, L.L.P., Thomas M. Lemberg and Hale and _______________ _____________________ _________________ ________
Dorr were on brief for appellee/respondent. ____
_____________________
_____________________
STAHL, Circuit Judge. Although the pitched STAHL, Circuit Judge. ______________
software copyright battle between Lotus Development Corp.
("Lotus") and Borland International, Inc. ("Borland") is now
before the Supreme Court, Borland seeks to reverse two
district court orders, either by appeal or by mandamus. We
defer our decision on the appeal for prudential reasons, and
deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.
I. I. __
BACKGROUND BACKGROUND __________
Lotus has waged a protracted litigation against
Borland, alleging that Borland infringed Lotus's copyright in
"Lotus 1-2-3", a popular and extremely successful computer
spreadsheet program. See Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, ___ ________________ _______________
Inc., 49 F.3d 807, 809 (1st Cir. 1995) (citing four district ____
court decisions in this case). In 1993, the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that
Borland had copied Lotus 1-2-3's menu command hierarchy;1
accordingly, the court entered a permanent injunction against
Borland. Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc., 831 F. _________________ ____________________
Supp. 223, 245 (D. Mass. 1993).
____________________
1. The menu command hierarchy is the 1-2-3 program's system
of operating commands (e.g., "Open"; "Save"; "Delete") that
are arranged in a linked hierarchy of command menus and
submenus. Each menu is a list of commands displayed on-
screen. The user selects a command by highlighting it on the
menu or typing its first letter.
-2- 2
Borland appealed the infringement ruling and the
injunction. By the time of that appeal, the district court
proceedings had narrowed the copyright claim to Borland's
alleged infringement of the menu command hierarchy. Lotus
did not contend on appeal that the district court erred in
finding that Borland had not copied any other elements of
Lotus 1-2-3. In March 1995, this court ruled that the menu
command hierarchy of Lotus 1-2-3 was a "method of operation"
not protectible by copyright, as provided in 17 U.S.C.
102(b), reversing the judgment of the district court. Lotus _____
Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc., 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. ___________ ____________________
1995).
Lotus filed a petition for certiorari with the
United States Supreme Court. While the certiorari petition
was pending, Borland filed a motion in the district court
seeking the entry of final judgment in its favor, arguing
that our opinion had rejected the only remaining basis for
Lotus's case. Lotus countered with a motion to stay all
further proceedings until the Supreme Court either denied
certiorari or ruled on the merits of the appeal. The
district court denied Borland's motion to enter judgment and
granted the stay that Lotus requested, noting in the margin
that "the pendency of the petition for writ of certiorari,
which raises issues sufficiently meritorious to permit
further judicial review[,] coupled with the absence of any
-3- 3
cognizable harm to the defendant during the pendency of
certiorari proceedings[,] counsels against further --
potentially unnecessary -- proceedings in this court until
the petition is resolved."
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Lotus Development v. Borland, (1st Cir. 1995).
Lotus Development v. Borland (Lotus Development v. Borland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.
337 U.S. 541 (Supreme Court, 1949)
Doughty v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, London
6 F.3d 856 (First Circuit, 1993)
In Re: v. Cargill, Inc.
66 F.3d 1256 (First Circuit, 1995)
Cathy Ann Glater v. Eli Lilly & Co.
744 F.2d 213 (First Circuit, 1984)
United States v. Richard A. Horn
29 F.3d 754 (First Circuit, 1994)
Lotus Development Corporation v. Borland International, Inc.
49 F.3d 807 (First Circuit, 1995)
Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International, Inc.
515 U.S. 1191 (Supreme Court, 1995)