IBM Corporation v. Micro Focus (US), Inc. et al, No. 7:2022cv09910 - Document 98 (S.D.N.Y. 2023)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER re: 56 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. filed by Micro Focus (US), Inc., 22 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel filed by Micro Focus (US), Inc. The motion to dismiss is GRANT ED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. IBM's copyright infringement claim shall proceed. IBM's breach of contract claim is dismissed. By June 13, 2023, Micro Focus shall file an answer. The motion to disqualify IBM's counsel is DENIED. Given t hat the Court has relied upon material that remains under seal, the Court is releasing this Opinion and Order under seal, pending review by the parties. In the unlikely event the parties believe that certain material in this Opinion and Order shoul d be redacted, counsel should jointly submit a proposed redacted version by no later than June 9, 2023. After reviewing the parties' submission, the Court will subsequently issue a publicly available version of its Opinion and Order. SO ORDERED. )Previously filed under seal on 5/31/2023) (Signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on 5/30/2023) (mml)

Download PDF
Doc. 98 IBM Corporation v. Micro Focus (US), Inc. et al 11 . ´ (8 1 > :) : ( ). . ) ~ ( ()) <1 ((( < :. ´( ´ . )) . . ( (: ( : (8 : : < ´1. «‌- ) . ~ ) 2 ( ) 7 5 5 (. ( (. ) ( ( (((. 1 8 ). > ( » (~ ( < ‌« . < : ‌« - Dockets.Justia.com < ( ( ‌« ) ( . ( » > ( (( ( ( < ) . ( : . . 1 « ) 1 «‌ <4 -. ‌« ( ‌« (. (( < ( »‌« 1 < ( ( 1 ( (: ( 5 5 ( - ) .)). » . () . :«(1 ( ( ) > ( ) <. 1 . ( 2 22 24 ( _ 4 ( ( _ 4 ~ 1 . . . ( ( ( _ ( 4 ~ 4 ~ ~ 1 (_ (. 4 ~ (~< ~ . ~ 18. _ ( ( ( 10). 884 ( (( 2 (( ( 1 ( . 1 ( 12(~)(6) _ 4 ~ 1 . ( ~ 4 5 ( ~ 4 ´ ~ - _ ((( ( ( 1 ( ~ )(( 1 1 1 ( ( 1 ( « 5. 662. 679(2 9). 556 )( ( ( ( ~. 1 _ ~ ( ( ( _ 1 ( ( 678 . 1~. _ ~ ( ( _ ~ )( ( ( ( ( () « 4 ( ( _ ( ( . 11 - (~) <~ . 2 ). 5 161(2 594 .3~ 15 ( . 4 ~ ~ ( ( ~ ~ ( 4 ( _ ( . ( 1 ( ( . ( _ ( 1 ( ( )~ 1 ( 679. 5. 6 ‌« ~ ( . 1 11 (( . ( _ ) 12(~)(6 _ ~ 4 ( ( _ « 1 (( ( 5. 544 . 55 _ . . 11 (1. ( 678 5. . 556 ~ . 1 ( ) ´ . ( 1 ( ( ( ( ( ( ~ ( ( « _ ~ 1 _ 557(2 7). ~ _ ( ( 4 ~ ( ( ( 1 ( ( ( ( ( ~ 4 ( 1 ( 678. 5. <556 (( . 1 . 1 ( ( 4 ( ( (( _ ( . _ 1 . ( . (( ) < 11 ( ( : ~ - 5 1 . ) 1 1 . 1 : . ) ( ). 1 ) 1(. . - <.) 1 - >‌« < . »‌. 5. ( 1 ( ) . 2 22). . 1 ). ~. ( ) . 1 . 2 ) 2 <«. )( ) ). ´ « ((() ´ < 1 ‌« (( < <«8«‌ (( - ‌«< : . )~( .7 ()(( ´ ~ (( ( 5. _( ( ) ( ) ( ( 5 ) ( ) 5 _ ( _ ( ~ ) .) . )) ( ( ( ( (1). ~~ (( ()5 ( () ~ (. (). (( )( : < ´´ ( ‌« ( - .( < ( . «‌ : 5 : ( < (: : ´ ( ) ( 1 ) . ) ~ ) .. ) 1 : «‌: < ´ «‌ 1. . 5 : . ( (:«‌ < ~ (. )1(. ( ( )( ( • ( ( ( ~ ( . ( 7 ( ( 7 . < ‌«( 1 < ‌« )). ) )). : ) 8

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.