FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT D e c e m be r 19, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]
I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 12222

________________________ D
. C
. D ocketN o. 05 -000 86 -C V -W C O -2 AR ME NT R OU T R OE B UC K MAT HE NY C O N S U L T I N G G R O U P , P .C ., a G e o r g ia C o rp o r a tio n , P l ai nt i ff -C ou nt er D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t,
v ersu s J ACKSON COUN TY W ATER AN D SEW ER AG E A U T H O R I T Y , a G e o r g ia P u b lic U tility A u th o r ity , P R I M E E N G I N E E R I N G I N C O R P O R A T E D , a G e o r g ia C o rp o r a tio n , D ef endant s- C ou nt er C la im a n t- A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 19, 2007 )Honora ble J ose E. Mar

tinez, United St ates District Judge f or the Southern District of * Florida , sitti ngby

designation. 2 Be f o r e EDM ON DSON , Ch i e f J u d g e , W I LS ON , Ci r c u i tJ u d g e , a n d M ARTI NEZ, * D i stri ctJudg e. P E R C U R I A M: A rm entroutR oebu ck M atheny C on sul t i ng G roup , P
. C
. , (“ A rm entrout ”)
a p p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s g r a n t o f s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t in f a v o ro f J a c k s o n C o u n ty W a t e ra nd S e w e r a ge A uthor i ty a nd P r i m e E ngi ne e r i ng, I nc . ( t oge the r , the

“ D efen d an t s”). F i n d i n g th atA rm en tro u tg ran t ed th e D efen d an t s an i m p l i ed l i cen se t o us e i t s c opy r i ght e d m a t e r i a l s , the di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d s um m a r y j udgm e ntf or the A uthor i ty a nd P r i m e . W e va c a t e a nd r e m a nd. W e r e v ie w a d is tr ic t c o u r t’s g r a n t o f s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t de no vo , “ appl y i ng the s a m e l e ga l s t a nda r ds tha tbound the di s tr i c tc our t , a nd vi e w i ng a l l f a c t s a nd
re as on abl e i nfer ence s i n t he l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o t he no nm ov i ng party. ” C ruz v . P ub l i x Sup erM

kt s. , Inc. , 428 F
. 3d 1379, 1382 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( i nt e r na l quot a t i on
m arks om i t t ed). S um m ary j ud gm enti s app ropri at e w here the re cord show s “ that th e r e is n o g e n u in e is s u e a s to a n y m a te r ia l f a c t a n d th a t th e m o v a n t is e n title d to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte ro f la w .” F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 ( c )
. Up o n c a r e f

u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n a n d a f

t e rth e b e n e f

i to f o r a l a r g u m e n t , we
c onc l ude tha ta r e a s ona bl e j ur y , w e i ghi ng the f a c t or s di s c us s e d i n N

el so n -Sa la b es,F or ins tanc e , th efo llo wingfac ts l e nd su pp or t to thefindingthat Arm e ntrout did not 1 intend to grant an implied license : (1) the pa rties were involved in an ong oing relationship, (2) the contract re stricted Jackson County ’s ability to transfer all rights under the agreement without Ar mentrout’ s wri tten c on sent, and (3 ) Arm e ntrout pl ac e d c op y ri ght n oti c e s o n it s materi a ls. 3 I n c . v . Mo r n i n gs i de D e v . , LLC , 28 4 F
. 3d 50 5, 51 6 (4t h C i r. 20 02 ), coul d fi nd that A r m e n tr o u t d id

n o t grantthe D ef

endant s a n i m pl i ed l i ce nse t o u se i t s c op yr i gh t ed
m at er i al s. T here fore , as a genui ne i ss ue of m at er i al fa ctexi st s, sum m ary

1 j udgm e ntw a s i na ppr opr i a t e . A c c or di ngl y , w e va c a t e the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof
sum m ary j ud gm enti n favor of the D ef endant s a nd re m and t hi s c as e t o t he di stri ct
co u rtfo r tri al o n th e m eri t s. VA C A TED A N D R EM A N D ED
.