Court Opinion

ID: 2963819
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:15:37.788373+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:46.579594
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          December 28, 1995     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            United States Court of Appeals
                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                For the First Circuit
                                 ____________________
        No. 95-1793

                         IN RE: BORLAND INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

                                     Petitioner,

                                _____________________
        No. 95-1885

                                  LOTUS DEVELOPMENT,

                                Plaintiff, Appellee,,

                                          v.

                             BORLAND INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CONSOLIDATED WITH
                            PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

                   [Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________
                                 ____________________

                                        Before
                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________
                                 ____________________

            Steven  Brower with  whom  Joel D.  Covelman,  Ginsburg,  Stephan,
            ______________             _________________   ___________________
        Oringher  &  Richman,  Peter  E.  Gelhaar,  Katherine  L.  Parks,  and
        ____________________   __________________   ____________________
        Donnelly, Conroy & Gelhaar were on brief for appellant/petitioner.
        __________________________
            Henry B.  Gutman with  whom Kerry  L. Konrad,  Jeffrey E.  Ostrow,
            ________________            ________________   __________________
        Lori E.  Lesser, Baker & Botts, L.L.P., Thomas M. Lemberg and Hale and
        _______________  _____________________  _________________     ________
        Dorr were on brief for appellee/respondent.
        ____
                                _____________________

                                _____________________

                      STAHL,  Circuit  Judge.     Although  the   pitched
                      STAHL,  Circuit  Judge.
                              ______________

            software copyright  battle  between Lotus  Development  Corp.

            ("Lotus") and Borland International, Inc. ("Borland") is  now

            before  the  Supreme  Court,  Borland seeks  to  reverse  two

            district court orders, either  by appeal or by mandamus.   We

            defer our decision on the appeal for prudential  reasons, and

            deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. 

                                          I.
                                          I.
                                          __

                                      BACKGROUND
                                      BACKGROUND
                                      __________

                      Lotus  has  waged a  protracted  litigation against

            Borland, alleging that Borland infringed Lotus's copyright in

            "Lotus 1-2-3",  a popular  and extremely successful  computer

            spreadsheet program.  See Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland  Int'l,
                                  ___ ________________    _______________

            Inc.,  49 F.3d 807, 809 (1st Cir. 1995) (citing four district
            ____

            court  decisions in this case).   In 1993,  the United States

            District Court  for the District of  Massachusetts ruled that

            Borland  had copied  Lotus  1-2-3's menu  command hierarchy;1

            accordingly, the court entered a permanent injunction against

            Borland.  Lotus  Dev. Corp.  v. Borland Int'l,  Inc., 831  F.
                      _________________     ____________________

            Supp. 223, 245 (D. Mass. 1993).

                                
            ____________________

            1.  The menu command hierarchy  is the 1-2-3 program's system
            of operating commands (e.g.,  "Open"; "Save"; "Delete")  that
            are  arranged  in a  linked  hierarchy of  command  menus and
            submenus.   Each  menu is  a list  of commands  displayed on-
            screen.  The user selects a command by highlighting it on the
            menu or typing its first letter.

                                         -2-
                                          2

                      Borland  appealed the  infringement ruling  and the

            injunction.  By the time  of that appeal,  the district court

            proceedings  had narrowed  the  copyright claim  to Borland's

            alleged infringement  of the  menu command hierarchy.   Lotus

            did  not contend on appeal  that the district  court erred in

            finding that  Borland had not  copied any  other elements  of

            Lotus 1-2-3.   In March 1995, this court  ruled that the menu

            command hierarchy of Lotus 1-2-3 was a  "method of operation"

            not protectible  by copyright,  as provided  in  17 U.S.C.   

            102(b), reversing the judgment of the  district court.  Lotus
                                                                    _____

            Dev.  Corp. v.  Borland Int'l,  Inc., 49  F.3d 807  (1st Cir.
            ___________     ____________________

            1995).

                      Lotus  filed a  petition  for  certiorari with  the

            United States  Supreme Court.  While  the certiorari petition

            was pending,  Borland filed a  motion in  the district  court

            seeking the  entry of  final judgment  in its favor,  arguing

            that  our opinion had  rejected the only  remaining basis for

            Lotus's  case.   Lotus countered  with a  motion to  stay all

            further  proceedings until  the Supreme  Court  either denied

            certiorari  or  ruled  on the  merits  of  the  appeal.   The

            district court denied Borland's  motion to enter judgment and

            granted the  stay that Lotus requested, noting  in the margin

            that "the  pendency of the  petition for writ  of certiorari,

            which  raises  issues   sufficiently  meritorious  to  permit

            further judicial  review[,] coupled  with the absence  of any

                                         -3-
                                          3

            cognizable  harm  to the  defendant  during  the pendency  of

            certiorari   proceedings[,]   counsels  against   further  --

            potentially unnecessary  -- proceedings in  this court  until

            the petition is resolved."

                      Borland now appeals the district court's refusal to

            enter  final judgment  and  its grant  of  a stay  until  the

            Supreme Court decided Lotus's appeal.  Apparently recognizing

            that  this  court  might  find  these  to  be  non-appealable

            interlocutory orders, Borland seeks in the alternative a writ

            of mandamus  directing the  district court to  enter judgment

            and  to dissolve  its  stay order.    While this  appeal  and

            petition were  pending, the Supreme Court granted certiorari,

            Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc., 116 S. Ct. 39 (Sept.
            ________________    ___________________

            27, 1995), and scheduled arguments for January 1996.

                                         II.
                                         II.
                                         ___

                                   BORLAND'S APPEAL
                                   BORLAND'S APPEAL
                                   ________________

                      Borland appeals the district court's orders denying

            Borland's motion  to  enter  judgment  and  granting  Lotus's

            motion for a stay of proceedings.  We have significant doubts

            as  to  our jurisdiction  because  the  orders appealed  from

            appear to  be neither  "final decisions" reviewable  under 28

            U.S.C.   1291 nor  appealable interlocutory orders under  the

            "collateral order"  doctrine  of Cohen  v. Beneficial  Indus.
                                             _____     __________________

            Loan Corp,  337 U.S. 541  (1949).  Our  jurisdictional doubts
            _________

            notwithstanding,   we  believe  the  wisest  course  at  this

                                         -4-
                                          4

            juncture  is  to defer  our  decision  on the  jurisdictional

            questions and  the merits  until the Supreme  Court announces

            its decision in this case.   See, e.g., Glater v. Eli Lilly &
                                         ___  ____  ______    ___________

            Co.,  744 F.2d  213, 214 (1st  Cir. 1984)  (decision deferred
            ___

            until Supreme Court decides  key issue in another case).   We

            recognize that this appeal  will almost certainly become moot

            when the Supreme Court rules, but that fact counsels against,

            not  for,  our  deciding the  appeal  now.    Thus, we  defer

            decision on this appeal until the Supreme Court announces its

            decision in this case.

                                         III.
                                         III.
                                         ____

                       BORLAND'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
                       BORLAND'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
                       _______________________________________

                      Federal  appellate  courts are  empowered  to issue

            prerogative writs  that are "necessary or  appropriate in aid

            of their respective jurisdictions,"  28 U.S.C.   1651(a), but

            that power must be  used stintingly and brought to  bear only

            in  extraordinary situations.    Doughty v.  Underwriters  at
                                             _______     ________________

            Lloyd's,  London, 6  F.3d  856, 865  (1st  Cir. 1993).    The
            ________________

            standards  for issuance of the  writ of mandamus  are high: a

            petitioner  must  show  both  that the  challenged  order  is

            palpably erroneous  and that  he faces  some special  risk of

            irreparable  harm.  In re  Cargill, Inc., 66  F.3d 1256, 1260
                                ____________________

            (1st Cir. 1995); United States v. Horn, 29 F.3d 754, 769 (1st
                             _____________    ____

            Cir. 1993); Doughty, 6 F.3d at 865.  And, even these showings
                        _______

            do  not  necessarily require  a court's  use  of the  writ of

                                         -5-
                                          5

            mandamus, which, as an  exceptional remedy, is to  be granted

            only in the exercise  of sound discretion.  Cargill,  66 F.3d
                                                        _______

            at 1260.

                      This petition does  not present the  combination of

            palpable  error  and  irreparable harm  necessary  to justify

            mandamus.   As  to  the  district court's  refusal  to  enter

            judgment for Borland,  we note that our mandate directed only

            that  the judgment for Lotus be reversed.  The district court

            complied by vacating the  injunction.  We did not  direct the

            entry of judgment for Borland; although  that result might be

            expected to follow  in due  course, this is  not a  situation

            where the court below has ignored our clear mandate.

                      As to  the stay, it would be a poor use of judicial

            resources  to conduct  further  proceedings  in the  district

            court at this time, given that the Supreme Court is  about to

            hear  Lotus's  appeal.    Whatever  Borland's  concern  about

            interest on an attorney fee award, the decision when to enter

            judgment  in a  case where  the Supreme  Court has  agreed to

            review the appeals  court's own decision  is obviously not  a

            candidate for mandamus.

                                         IV.
                                         IV.
                                         ___

                                      CONCLUSION
                                      CONCLUSION
                                      __________

                      For the foregoing reasons, we defer our decision in

            Borland's appeal, No. 95-1885, and we deny Borland's petition

            for a writ of mandamus, No. 95-1793.

                                         -6-
                                          6

                      Petition for writ of mandamus denied.   No costs to
                      Petition for writ of mandamus denied.   No costs to
                      _____________________________________   ___________

            either party.
            either party.
            _____________

                                         -7-
                                          7