SCO Grp v. Novell Inc, No. 2:2004cv00139 - Document 563 (D. Utah 2008)
Court Description: RESPONSE re 561 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, filed by Defendant Novell, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Novell Proposed Final Judgment, # 2 Exhibit Judgment Redline)(Sneddon, Heather) (Entered: 10/31/2008)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
SCO Grp v. Novell Inc Doc. 563 Att. 2 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP Michael A. Jacobs, pro hac vice David E. Melaugh, pro hac vice 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 ANDERSON & KARRENBERG Thomas R. Karrenberg, #3726 Heather M. Sneddon, #9520 700 Chase Tower 50 West Broadway Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Telephone: (801) 534-1700 Facsimile: (801) 364-7697 Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Novell, Inc. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION THE SCO GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff and CounterclaimDefendant, v. [NOVELL PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT Case No. 2:04CV00139 Judge Dale A. Kimball NOVELL, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant and CounterclaimPlaintiff. Dockets.Justia.com Whereas by Memorandum Decision and Order dated August 10, 2007, the Court having ruled on the parties’ summary judgment motions, and the matter having come before the Court for trial on April 29 and 30 and May 1 and 2, 2008, and the Court having issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order dated July 16, 2008, and the parties having stipulated or moved to dismiss the claims remaining after the foregoing Orders, and the Court having considered the submissions of the parties concerning the entry of Final Judgment, and good cause appearing, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that: 1. SCO’s claims for Slander of Title (Count I) and Specific Performance (Count III) are dismissed pursuant to the Court’s Memorandum Decision and Order dated August 10, 2007. 2. SCO’s claims for Breach of Contract (Count II), Copyright Infringement (Count IV), and Unfair Competition (Count V) are dismissed pursuant to the Court’s Memorandum Decision and Order dated August 10, 2007, insofar as these claims are based on ownership of pre-APA UNIX and UnixWare copyrights. 3. SCO’s The remaining portions of SCO’s claims, for Breach of Contract (Count II), Copyright Infringement (Count IV), and Unfair Competition (Count V), are voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, without the possibility of renewal following appeal. 4. With respect to Novell’s claims for Declaratory Relief (Count IV), pursuant to the Court’s Memorandum Decision and Order dated August 10, 2007, Novell is entitled to direct SCO to waive claims against IBM, Sequent, and other SVRX licensees; Novell is entitled to waive such claims on SCO’s behalf; and SCO is obligated to recognize such a waiver. In addition, pursuant to the Court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order dated July 16, 2008, SCO was not authorized under the APA to amend, in the 2003 Sun Agreement, the confidentiality provisions of Sun’s 1994 SVRX buyout agreement with Novell, and SCO needed to obtain Novell’s approval before entering into the amendment; but SCO was fully authorized under the APA to enter into other parts of the 2003 Sun Agreement without any approval by Novell, and was also fully authorized under the APA to enter into the 2003 Microsoft Agreement and the SCOsource Agreements with Linux end-users without any approval by Novell. 5. With respect to Novell’s claims for Constructive Trust/Restitution/Unjust Enrichment (Count VI), Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Count VII), and Conversion (Count VIII), pursuant to the Court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order dated July 16, 2008, Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Novell for $2,547,817, for the revenues from the 2003 Sun Agreement attributable to the unauthorized amendment of the SVRX confidentiality provisions in Sun’s 1994 SVRX buyout agreement with Novell. Pursuant to the parties’ agreement reflected in Novell’s Unopposed Submission Regarding Prejudgment Interest dated August 29, 2008, that award is increased by $918,122 in prejudgment interest through August 29, 2008, plus $489 per diem thereafter until the date of this Judgment. 6. Further with respect to Novell’s claim for a Constructive Trust (Count VI), as reported in Novell’s Submission Regarding the Entry of Final Judgment dated August 29, 2008, the parties have reached an agreement as to the amount of the constructive trust ($625,486.90), and the parties will be reporting that amount to the Bankruptcy Court in the related bankruptcy proceeding, if they have not already done so. 7. Novell’s claims for Accounting (Count IX) areis mooted by the Court’s Memorandum Decision and Order dated August 10, 2007. 8. Pursuant to the parties’ Joint Statement dated August 17, 2007, and Supplemental Joint Statement dated August 24, 2007, Novell’s claims for Slander of Title (Count I), Breach of Contract (Count II), and Declaratory Relief (Count V) are voluntarily dismissed, with the right to pursue these claims only in this action, should there be a subsequent adjudication or trial in this action. 9. Pursuant to the Court’s Order dated September 7, 2007, granting Novell’s Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Its Third Claim for Relief dated August 24, 2007, Novell’s claims claim for Breach of Contract (Count III) are is voluntarily dismissed, with the right to pursue these claimsthis claim only in this action, should there be a subsequent adjudication or trial in this action. 10. Pursuant to the parties’ Joint Statement dated August 17, 2007, Novell’s claims for punitive damages under any claim are dismissed, with the right to seek such relief only in this action, should there be a subsequent adjudication or trial in this action. 11. For the reasons set forth above and in the Court’s Orders referenced above, this case is closed. Execution shall be stayed until relief from the automatic stay is obtained from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in the case entitled In re: The SCO Group, Inc, Case No. 07-11337(KG). DATED: ____________________, 2008 BY THE COURT: ______________________________________ Judge Dale A. Kimball United States District Court Judge
]]>
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.
