The First Circuit affirmed Judge Young’s dismissal of a copyright action for claim preclusion resulting from a similar New York lawsuit.
Plaintiff Airframe Systems, Inc. was a software vendor who had provided software to Aircraft Integration Systems (AIS). From 1995-2002 AIS was owned by Raytheon. In 2002, L-3 purchased AIS. In 2003 Airframe discovered that unauthorized versions of its source code were on AIS computers. It further confirmed this in 2003 by using a subpoena in an unrelated case between Airframe and a former AIS employee to obtain documents from L-3. Apparently some time in 1997-1998 this former AIS employee made unauthorized copies of the source code during a visit to Airframe and brought them back to AIS.
In 2005 Airframe sued AIS and L-3 in the S.D.N.Y. saying that the unauthorized copies constituted copyright infringement and that L-3 “could have” used the source code wrongfully. In 2006 statements were made during a motion session that Airframe claimed to be an admission of use. Airframe wrote a letter to the court asking to amend its complaint, but didn’t file a motion. The court ultimately dismissed the complaint for failing to state a claim. Airframe did not appeal.
Instead, Airframe filed suit in D. Mass., this time adding Raytheon as a defendant since Raytheon owned AIS when the source code was taken. Judge Young dismissed the case under claim preclusion. The First Circuit affirmed holding that (1) Airframe knew sufficient relevant facts when it brought the S.D.N.Y. action to have included the claim then, (2) the new D. Mass. action involves the same nucleus of facts as the S.D.N.Y. action, and (3) Raytheon is sufficiently related to L-3 in this context as one-time owners of the same division.
Retired Justice David Souter, sitting by designation, was part of the First Circuit panel.
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=09-1624P.01A
Airframe Sys., Inc. v. Raytheon, Co., 09-1624 (1st Cir. Mar. 31, 2010)
Comments