Crosspoint, Inc. v. Integrated Computing, Inc., No. 05-13449 (11th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 05-13449 ________________________ OCT 4, 2006 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D. C. Docket No. 03-00558-CV-ORL-19-KRS CROSSPOINTE, LLC, a Florida corporation, Plaintiff-CounterDefendant-AppelleeCross-Appellant, versus INTEGRATED COMPUTING, INC., a Florida corporation, DAVID SCOTT, a citizen of Florida, Defendants-CounterClaimants-Third-Party Plaintiffs-AppellantsCross-Appellees, SMARTWEB TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Florida corporation, et al., BILL W. MERRYMAN, a citizen of Florida, Defendants-CounterClaimants-Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, MICHELLE FARAHBAKSH, Defendant-Appellant, JOHN KEEBLER, Counter-Defendant, versus JOAN KEEBLER, President of Crosspointe, Inc., et al., Third-Party Defendants. ________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _________________________ (October 4, 2006) Before MARCUS, WILSON and COX, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This case arises out of a copyright dispute over several computer software programs designed to assist primary and secondary schools in their administration duties. Defendants/Appellants/Cross-Appellees Integrated Computing, Inc. ( Integrated ), SmartWeb Technology, Inc. ( SmartWeb ), David Scott, Bill W. Merryman, and Michelle Farahbaksh (collectively, Defendants ) appeal from a 2 jury verdict and final judgment granting monetary, declaratory, and/or injunctive relief against them on various of Plaintiff/Appellee/Cross-Appellant CrossPointe, LLC s ( CrossPointe ) claims for copyright infringement, unfair competition, tortious interference, and deceptive trade practices. Defendants raise the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the district court erred in construing and instructing the jury on the Copyright Act s deposit requirement, (2) whether the district court erred in determining that sufficient evidence existed for CrossPointe s copying claim to go to the jury over Defendants defense that copying was performed under school districts license, and (3) whether the district court erred in construing and instructing the jury on the burden of proof for the issue of whether the allegedly copied items constituted protected expression under the abstraction-filtrationcomparison test. CrossPointe cross-appeals (1) the district court s denial of certain discovery motions, (2) the district court s grant of summary judgment to Defendants on Counts 3 and 4 of CrossPointe s Second Amended Complaint, and (3) the district court s refusal to grant remittitur or a new trial on the $50,000 in damages awarded against CrossPointe on Count 12 of Integrated s, SmartWeb s, and Scott s Second Amended Counterclaim. After careful review of the briefs and record, and after having the benefit of 3 oral argument, we find no merit in any of these issues. Therefore, we affirm. AFFIRMED. 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
