Opinion

Computer Associates International, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Altai, Inc., Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant

  • 982 F.2d 693
  • 119 A.L.R. Fed. 741
  • 92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10213
  • 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 33369
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Filed
Dec 17, 1992
Status
Published
Author
Altimari
On the bench
Altimari, Mahoney, Walker
Cited by
399 cases

holding that the plaintiffs former employee who stole a computer code and used it to design a program for the defendant could state a claim of misappropriation of a trade secret that was not preempted by the Copyright Act

How later courts described this case

  • holding that the plaintiffs former employee who stole a computer code and used it to design a program for the defendant could state a claim of misappropriation of a trade secret that was not preempted by the Copyright Act
  • stating that many state law causes of action are not preempted (cjting Balboa Ins. Co. v. Trans Global Equities, 218 Cal.App.3d 1327, 267 Cal.Rptr. 787, cert. denied, 498 U.S. 940, 111 S.Ct. 347, 112 L.Ed.2d 311 (1990))
  • noting that “unfair competition claims based upon breaches of confidential relationships” are not preempted (citing Balboa Ins. Co. v. Trans Glob. Equities, 218 Cal. App. 3d 1327 , 1339–53 (Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1990) (holding that § 301 does not preempt unfair competition claims “based on trade secret and breaches of confidence or fiduciary duty,” id. at 1339))
  • noting that Congress drafted the Copyright Act of 1976 with an understanding that trade secret claims “contain elements, such as ... breach of trust or confidentiality, that are different in kind from copyright infringement” (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong. 54, reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5659, 5748)

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

ALTIMARI, Circuit Judge,

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

Because I believe that our original opinion, see Computer Assoc. Int’l v. Altai, Nos. 91-7893(L), 1992 WL 139364 (2d Cir. June 22,1992), is a reasoned analysis of the issues presented, I adhere to the original determination and therefore concur in Part 1 and respectfully dissent from Part 2 of the amended opinion.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.