(

Minute Order Form (6197) ~ a
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
nero Magra uae James B. Moran “Than Ange Judge
CASE NUMBER 00 C 7128 DATE 1/26/2001
CASE Inforsys, Inc. Vs. Joel Davis et al.
TITLE

{In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the

nature of the motion being presented.]

ay

MOTION:
Memorandum Opinion and Order
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd) im Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Q Brief in support of motion due
(3) a Arswer brief to motion due, . Reply to answer brief due___.
(4) im) Ruling/Hearingon__ssetfor__—_at
(5) o Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__setfor__at
(6) Qo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on___setfor___—at_—
(7) Oo Trial[set for/re-set for]on__at
(8) im [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continuedto__—_at
(9) a This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OUFRCP4(m) General Rule 21 OERCP41(a\(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).
a0) =o [Other docket entry] | Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. The motion to dismiss is denied.

Status hearing set for February 15, 2001 at 9:45am.

a [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.
rea number of notices

Notices maited by judge’s staff. WAN 30 001.

Notified counsel by telephone. date docketed

wD ; Vie,

Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form. docketing deputy initials

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

vi dee ited not
© é date mailed notice
WAH deputy’s

initials

Date/time received in
central Clerk’s Office mailing deputy initials



des

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

INFOSYS, INC., )
an Illinois corporation, )
)

Plaintiff, ) DOCKETED
)

vs. ) —_No.00€ 7128 JAN 8 6 2001
)
JOEL DAVIS, An Illinois resident, )
etal, )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiffsues for copyright infringement. Defendants move to dismiss, claiming the suit
really relates to whether or not certain of the defendants have license rights (at least to the end
of 2000), that the license issues rest upon state law, and that the state law issues are already
being litigated in state court.

The motion to dismiss is denied. In state court the issues are characterized as state law
licensing issues. Here the plaintiff sues for copyright infringement, and defendants may well
claim that there is no infringement because of license rights. Plaintiffs in state court are
entitled to pursue state law claims there. But plaintiff here sues for copyright infringement,
a claim for a remedy expressly granted by the Copyright Act, and it may, indeed must, pursue
that claim in federal court. T. B. Harms Company v, Eliscu, 339 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1964), cert,
denied 381 U.S. 915. The “well-pleaded complaint” rule applies, Saturday Evening Post Co,
vy. Rumbleseat Press, Inc., 816 F.2d 1191 (7" Cir. 1987), even though licensing issues may
ultimately come to dominate the litigation. Bassett v. Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, 204 F.3d

343 (2d Cir. 2000).


No. 00 C 7128 Page 2

That results, of course, in two lawsuits proceeding along somewhat parallel tracks, but

that is not a basis for preferring one over the other. Both may proceed. No basis for abstention

is apparent, as Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800
(1976) and. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1

(1983) make clear, particularly as plaintiff is required to pursue his federal remedies in federal

court.

JAMES B. MORAN
Judge, U. S. District Court

tes. 2E_, 2000.