Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cassetica Software, Inc v. Computer Sciences Corp

September 22, 2011


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber


Plaintiff Cassetica Software, Inc. (hereinafter, "Cassetica") brought the instant suit alleging copyright infringement against Computer Sciences Corp. (hereinafter, "CSC"). Cassetica now moves to dismiss CSC's counterclaims and strike its affirmative defenses. For the reasons stated herein, Cassetica's Motion to Dismiss CSC's Counterclaims is granted, with CSC given leave to replead its claim under the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("IUDTPA"), 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 510, et seq., within 30 days of the date of this Order. Cassetica's Motion to Strike CSC's Affirmative Defenses is granted, except that the defense of unclean hands may stand.


Cassetica is a software developer that developed a companion program to Lotus Notes called "NotesMedic." It contends that CSC's employees, acting within the scope of their employment, have copied Cassetica's software code and infringed Cassetica's copyright and that CSC is vicariously liable for these infringements.

This is not the first lawsuit involving these parties. In 2009, Cassetica sued CSC for infringement of its copyright on a prior version of the NotesMedic program and sought statutory damages. Judge Virginia Kendall dismissed the suit. Cassetica Software, Inc. v. Computer Scis. Corp., 09 C 0003, 2009 WL 1703015 (N.D. Ill. June 18, 2009). Her ruling was based on the fact that the alleged infringement started prior to the effective date of the copyright registration, which was January 22, 2007. Id. at *2; see 17 U.S.C. § 412(2).

Cassetica contends that since the dismissal of that suit, CSC employees have continued to download new, separately copyrighted versions of its NotesMedic software (referred to as Versions 6 and 7). Both of these versions have been registered with the Copyright Office, and all the illegal downloading took place after registration, the Complaint alleges.

CSC has filed counterclaims under the IUDTPA and for common law unfair competition. Cassetica seeks to dismiss these counterclaims for failure to state a claim pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). CSC also has pleaded several affirmative defenses. Cassetica seeks to strike each of these defenses pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(f). Each motion will be addressed in turn.


A. Legal Standard

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a pleading. In re HealthCare Compare Corp. Sec. Litig., 75 F.3d 276, 279 (7th Cir. 1996). In ruling on a motion to dismiss a counterclaim, the court accepts the well-pleaded allegations of the counterclaim as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the counter-plaintiff. Terrell v. Childers, 889 F.Supp. 311, 314 (N.D. Ill. 1995).


CSC's claim under the IUDTPA alleges that Cassetica markets and promotes its NotesMedic software in a deceptive and misleading fashion in order to trick businesses into entering into unwanted licenses for the software. Although CSC alleges that this scheme has gone on for the last several years, carried out through misrepresentations on Cassetica's web site, its Counterclaim is muddled. For example, CSC first alleges that Cassetica has marketed its product as free for home users. Def.'s Countercl. at ¶ 7. But in the next paragraph, CSC alleges that Cassetica has engaged in a bait-and-switch scheme by falsely promoting the product as free, and then seeking to enforce a putative enterprise license agreement with the individual's employer for the unwanted software. Id. at ¶ 8. The Court is unsure what promoting a product as free for home users has to do with a bait-and-switch scheme involving business licenses.

Perhaps more on point is CSC's allegation that Cassetica has at times offered its license free for one user per company. However, according to the Counterclaim, Cassetica never informed employees at the time of download as to whether any other employee in their company had already downloaded the software. And it never informed employers at the time of download that, because of their employees' actions, they had entered into enterprise-wide license agreements. Def.'s CounterCl. at ¶ 12--13.

It is difficult to tell from CSC's Counterclaim what was offered to whom, and when. This lack of clarity may stem from the fact that Cassetica has apparently changed the terms upon which it offers the NotesMedic software over the years, depending on the version at issue. For example, according to Cassetica's Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Dismiss, the company now offers a free home user option, an "enterprise license," that covers a single corporate entity, and a "global license" that covers a corporate entity and any subsidiaries or affiliates. Cassetica acknowledges that in the past it has offered a free version of its NotesMedic software for one user per company, but maintains that it no longer does so. In its Counterclaim, CSC ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.