Case 4:07-cv-03010-CW Document 25-4 Filed 07/26/2007 Page 2 of 2
Westlaw
Slip Copy Page 1
Slip Copy, 2006 WL 1430215 (N.D.lll.)
(Cite as: Slip Copy)
rights, not copyright, and, in any event, common
Appllaailaa Saiaaaa aaa Ta¤h¤<>l¤gv1 LLC v» Stat- law copyright is 3 creature Or stare not mimi aw.
tiitii; iiificgitgigigiigies Cmp- Clearly there are ownership aspects to the dispute,
· · ·> · which can bc determined if there is otherwise feder-
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. ai iuiisdictioii But just as cicaiiyt Statmim has ai_
United States District Court,N.D. Illinois, Eastern lcged iiii~ting€mcnt_ We are unsure what the i.€i~€i_
Division ence to "common law copyright law" means. State
Ai)PLiCATiON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY- common law copyright law has been pre-empted by
LLC» a Navaiia limliaii liability aampaaw Chad redemi law since 1978. 17 usc. g mi; 1 Nimmer
Kalebic, Michael Hurst and Anthony Briede, On Copyright, § i_0i(B)(20O5)_
Plaintiffs,
v. Statmon's fallback position is that it has never re-
STATMON TECHNOLOGIES CORP., aNevada gisterecl its copyright and therefore it could not
corporation, Defendant. bring an infringement action. 17 L1.; Q`,. § 411. Be-
No. 05 C 6864. cause it could not sue, then AST is similarly dis-
ablcd. Neither party has cited any case directly on
Apiii 2i> 2006 point, and we have found none. But can a party ac-
Jay Williams, Lawrence Harris 1-leftman, Schiff Fuscddilitiicr Offlnfnngeiiricm aid privciiiiic al-
Hardin LLP, chicago, IL, rm Piaimirrs. °g° in img`? mm Sic mg ic mss .y ai lng i°
_ _ bring a coercive lawsuit? The answer is obviously
Y\i11tcl1g·ll Bryan, Garv Irwin Blackman, James D. __nO,,_ that is 8 mason for permitting dcciatamry
Brusslaii, Leventield Pearlstein, LLC, James G. . i . . .
Nriartivnon, Jenner & Block, LLC, Chicago, IL, for Judgment aCUOnS` We think that answer pertains
when the accuser seeks to prevent the alleged in-
` fringer from seeking redress by failing to register
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ilia a°PYii€l“·
A/1(.)l
_ _ , Application Science and Technology, LLC v. Stat-
Nevada corporation (Statmon), moved to dismiss mon Technologies Corp.
for lack of personal jurisdiction and for lack of sub- Slip Copy 2006 WL 1430215 (N D iii)
ject matter jurisdiction and, alternatively, moved to ’ i ` `
transfer venue to the Central District of California. END OF DOCUMENT
Judge Shadur directed the parties' attention to the
subject matter jurisdiction issue and they have done
so. We now deny the motion to dismiss for lack of
subject matterjurisdiction.
Plaintiff, Application Science and Technology,
LLC, a Nevada limited liability company (AST),
and its principals, were named as defendants in a
state court action in California. Among other alleg-
ations, AST is alleged to have copied Statmon's
software and to infringe its rights "under common
law copyright law." That prompted AST to bring
this action for declaratory judgment here. Statmon
contends that the dispute is really about ownership
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
Case 4:07-cv-03010-CW
Document 25-4
Filed 07/26/2007
Page 1 of 2
Case 4:07-cv-03010-CW
Document 25-4
Filed 07/26/2007
Page 2 of 2
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms