Court Opinion

ID: 9964857
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-01 00:00:48.152704+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:44.414705
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20463      Document: 193-1          Page: 1   Date Filed: 04/30/2024

        United States Court of Appeals
             for the Fifth Circuit                                   United States Court of Appeals
                                                                              Fifth Circuit
                             ____________                                   FILED
                                                                        April 30, 2024
                              No. 22-20463
                             ____________                              Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                            Clerk
BMC Software, Inc.,

                                                           Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                    versus

International Business Machines Corporation,

                                        Defendant—Appellant.
               ______________________________

               Appeal from the United States District Court
                   for the Southern District of Texas
                        USDC No. 4:17-CV-2254
               ______________________________

Before Jones, Stewart, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Edith H. Jones, Circuit Judge:
       Defendant International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”)
appeals from a judgment awarding over $1.6 billion in contract and fraudulent
inducement damages to Plaintiff BMC Software, Inc. We conclude that the
district court’s determination concerning liability was in error. Accordingly,
we REVERSE.
                            I. Background
       BMC is a Houston-based software company that develops and
licenses proprietary mainframe software products.         BMC’s mainframe
Case: 22-20463          Document: 193-1        Page: 2      Date Filed: 04/30/2024

                                     No. 22-20463

software products, and the accompanying services that BMC provides, are
used by its customers to run, manage, and secure operations on their
mainframe computers. IBM is a New York-based information technology
company that also manufactures mainframe computers, creates mainframe
software, and provides information technology (“IT”) outsourcing services.
      BMC and IBM directly compete in developing and selling mainframe
software. But IBM also provides necessary outsourcing services to BMC
and BMC’s customers, including AT&T.1 In 2008, IBM and BMC entered
into a Master Licensing Agreement (“MLA”) covering a broad range of
interactions between the parties and an Outsourcing Attachment. The
Outsourcing Attachment authorized IBM to use BMC’s software in its IT
servicing business for customers to whom BMC licensed BMC software.
IBM and BMC amended the Outsourcing Attachments in 2013 and again in
2015 (the “2015 OA”).
      The parties’ dispute over the 2015 OA is the focus of this appeal.
Three of its provisions are relevant. First, Section 1.1 provides IBM with
five options for using BMC’s software. Among those options, the “Access
and Use” option authorizes IBM to use BMC software without a license
charge under certain circumstances, as provided in Section 5.1:
      BMC will allow [IBM] to use, access, install and have
      operational responsibility of the BMC Customer Licenses
      (together, “Access and Use”) under the terms of the BMC
      Customer’s license agreement with BMC for no fee, including
      on Computers owned or leased by BMC Customer and at
      BMC Customer’s facility, provided that the BMC Customer
      Licenses are used solely for the purposes of supporting the
      BMC Customer who owns such licenses[.]

      _____________________
      1
          Although this case concerns an AT&T-initiated project, AT&T is not a party.

                                           2
Case: 22-20463        Document: 193-1         Page: 3     Date Filed: 04/30/2024

                                   No. 22-20463

Finally, Section 5.4 limits IBM’s ability to “displace” BMC software in
certain BMC customers’ mainframes as follows:
       This Non-Displacement provision applies only to [IBM]’s Ac-
       cess and Use of BMC Customer Licenses by [IBM]’s strate-
       gic outsourcing division (or its successor) for the BMC Cus-
       tomers listed on Exhibit K . . . . Subject to the foregoing, [IBM]
       agrees that, while [IBM] cannot displace any BMC Customer
       Licenses with [IBM] products, [IBM] may discontinue use of
       BMC Customer Licenses for other valid business reasons. All
       terms of Sections 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 apply to [IBM’s] use of
       BMC Customer licenses belonging to any Exhibit K Custom-
       ers[.]
The two predecessor Outsourcing Attachments contained nearly identically
worded “non-displacement” provisions, but the 2015 OA is unique in that it
limits the provision’s applicability to fifty-four identified BMC customers
(Exhibit K), including AT&T. The evidence indicates that both parties were
well aware of the competitive implications of IBM’s servicing BMC-licensed
customers,2 but during each of these contract negotiations, they were unable
to agree to modify the “non-displacement” term’s language.
       Meanwhile, in April 2013, AT&T and IBM began to explore a project
to replace BMC software with software from providers including IBM on the
AT&T mainframe, a project codenamed Project Swallowtail. The district
court describes the commencement of the project thus: “Though IBM
thought that participating in Project Swallowtail could further its long-term
growth and expansion goals, there is no indication that it initiated the
partnership with AT&T” (emphasis in original). In March 2014, however,

       _____________________
       2
         Indeed, the parties sparred over two previous instances in which IBM had
provided outsourcing services pursuant to which BMC customers ended up transitioning
to IBM software. One such instance led to a negotiated settlement and release of IBM.

                                         3
Case: 22-20463      Document: 193-1        Page: 4   Date Filed: 04/30/2024

                               No. 22-20463

AT&T ceased work on Project Swallowtail, opting instead to renew its
agreement with BMC.
      The district court then found:
      Around February 2015, AT&T changed its mind and decided
      to restructure its mainframe environment after all, at which
      point it approached IBM about a new initiative codenamed
      Project Cirrus…AT&T’s working strategy for Cirrus was to
      transition IBM’s mainframe IT services contract to a
      ‘consumption model that includes all 3rd party software, new
      labor and hardware options, reaping ‘drastic[]’ savings on
      ‘mainframe total costs’ in the process…And it wanted IBM to
      lead the project because ‘IBM ha[d] skills and expertise’
      necessary ‘to successfully execute the project.’…AT&T
      specifically wanted to replace BMC’s products with other
      vendors’ products primarily out of cost considerations….
      After learning of IBM’s involvement in Project Swallowtail, BMC
filed suit against IBM. In its Second Amended Complaint, BMC asserted
twelve causes of action, including claims that IBM’s work in migrating
BMC software, inter alia, to IBM software in AT&T’s mainframe
environment violated certain provisions of the 2015 OA. BMC also alleged
that IBM fraudulently induced BMC to enter the 2015 OA.
      Eventually, both parties sought summary judgment on various claims
and counterclaims. The district court awarded summary judgment to IBM
on the claim for breach of Section 1.1, explaining that the section “merely
puts IBM to an election regarding how it would use BMC products in
relation to its provision of IT Services at AT&T,” and “IBM elected to
proceed pursuant to § 1.1(a): ‘Access and Use— (Sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and
5.4).’”
      But the district court denied IBM’s motion for summary judgment
on BMC’s Section 5.1 breach-of-contract claim. In so doing, the district

                                       4
Case: 22-20463           Document: 193-1          Page: 5       Date Filed: 04/30/2024

                                       No. 22-20463

court concluded that “§ 5.1 is unambiguous and must be interpreted to
preclude access and use of [IBM] licenses to displace BMC products.” This
conclusion reinforced the court’s principal conclusion that the Section 5.4
non-displacement         provision      unambiguously         prevented      IBM       from
“displacing” BMC products with IBM software. The court granted partial
summary judgment to BMC because IBM “displaced BMC Customer
Licenses with IBM products when it implemented Project Swallowtail at
AT&T.”
        A bench trial was held to resolve the remaining issues. Having found
that IBM breached the 2015 OA, the district court addressed the damages
IBM would owe BMC.                  The district court concluded that “BMC
established that its license fees represent[ed] the direct damages expressly
contemplated under the contract” and, therefore, ordered IBM to pay
BMC “$717,739,615.00 in unpaid license fees.” The district court then
doubled the damages with a punitive damage assessment on the ground that
IBM fraudulently induced BMC into signing the 2015 OA.3 Summing up
the actual and punitive damages with other incidental damages, the judgment
awarded BMC approximately $1.6 billion.4
                           II. Standard of Review
        This court reviews the district court’s order granting partial summary
judgment “de novo, applying the same legal standards as the district court.”

        _____________________
        3
          To reach this surprising outcome as a matter of Texas law, the court had to find
that the damage disclaimers and limitations in provisions of the MLA were unenforceable
under New York law.
        4
          The district court also awarded BMC $168,226,367.29 in prejudgment interest,
$16,287,868.40 in attorneys’ fees, $4,094,718.13 in litigation costs, $1,232,558.00 in “post-
judgment and conditional appellate expenses, and “post-judgment interest from the date
of the entry of judgment at the federally mandated rate.”

                                             5
Case: 22-20463      Document: 193-1       Page: 6    Date Filed: 04/30/2024

                                No. 22-20463

Ryder v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 945 F.3d 194, 199 (5th Cir. 2019). Entering
summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). And “[f]ollowing a bench trial,
findings of fact are reviewed for clear error and legal issues are reviewed de
novo.” Tex. Ent. Ass’n, Inc. v. Hegar, 10 F.4th 495, 504 (5th Cir. 2021)
(quoting One Beacon Ins. Co. v. Crowley Marine Servs., Inc., 648 F.3d 258, 262
(5th Cir. 2011)).
                            III. Discussion
       IBM challenges the district court’s conclusion that it breached the
2015 OA by replacing BMC’s software partially with IBM software at
AT&T’s instigation on the AT&T mainframe. Because the interpretation
of the 2015 OA is dispositive, we do not reach other issues raised by IBM
concerning liability for fraudulent inducement and damages.
       The district court determined that IBM breached Section 5.4 of the
2015 OA as a matter of law by executing AT&T’s request to replace BMC’s
software with IBM software in AT&T’s mainframe. According to the
court, this “non-displacement provision” unambiguously barred IBM from
replacing BMC’s software with IBM software in AT&T’s mainframe even
if AT&T requested IBM to complete this task. Though we, too, find the
language of Section 5.4 unambiguous, we hold that “other valid business
reasons” under Section 5.4 supported IBM’s service in effecting AT&T’s
switchover, which partially included IBM software.
       New York law governs our interpretation of the 2015 OA. “Whether
or not a writing is ambiguous is a question of law to be resolved by the
courts.” See W.W.W. Assocs., Inc. v. Giancontieri, 566 N.E.2d 639, 642 (N.Y.
1990) (citation omitted). The terms of a contract are clear and unambiguous
if, after applying these rules of construction, “the agreement on its face is

                                      6
Case: 22-20463        Document: 193-1       Page: 7     Date Filed: 04/30/2024

                                  No. 22-20463

reasonably susceptible of only one meaning.” Greenfield v. Philles Recs., Inc.,
780 N.E.2d 166, 171 (N.Y. 2002). “Under longstanding rules of contract
interpretation, ‘[w]here the terms of a contract are clear and unambiguous,
the intent of the parties must be found within the four corners of the contract,
giving a practical interpretation to the language employed and reading the
contract as a whole.’”       Tomhannock, LLC v. Roustabout Res., LLC,
128 N.E.3d 674, 675 (N.Y. 2019) (quoting Ellington v. EMI Music, Inc.,
21 N.E.3d 1000, 1003 (N.Y. 2014)). “Particular words should be considered,
not as if isolated from the context, but in the light of the obligation as a whole
and the intention of the parties manifested thereby.” Donohue v. Cuomo,
184 N.E.3d 860, 870–71 (N.Y. 2022) (quoting Kolbe v. Tibbetts, 3 N.E.3d 115,
11561 (N.Y. 2013)). Furthermore, “a contract must be construed in a manner
which gives effect to each and every part, so as not to render any provision
‘meaningless or without force or effect.’” Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc.,
Series 2006-FM2 v. Nomura Credit & Cap., Inc., 92 N.E.3d 743, 748 (N.Y.
2017) (quoting Ronnen v. Ajax Elec. Motor Corp., 671 N.E.2d 534, 536 (N.Y.
1996)).
       Among the options contained in the 2015 OA for using BMC’s
software, IBM selected the “Access and Use” option, which allowed IBM
to:
       use, access, install and have operational responsibility of the
       BMC Customer Licenses (together, ‘Access and Use’) under
       the terms of the BMC Customer’s license agreement with
       BMC for no fee, including on Computers owned or leased by
       BMC Customer and at BMC Customer’s facility, provided
       that the BMC Customer Licenses are used solely for the
       purposes of supporting the BMC Customer who owns such licenses
       ....
(Emphasis added). In other words, IBM could access and use BMC’s
software without itself paying a license fee but only to support BMC

                                        7
Case: 22-20463       Document: 193-1      Page: 8    Date Filed: 04/30/2024

                                No. 22-20463

customers who owned BMC software licenses. Critically here, in Section 5.4
of the 2015 OA, IBM agreed to “non-displacement,” that is, for certain listed
customers (including AT&T), “while [IBM] cannot displace any BMC
Customer Licenses with [IBM] products, [IBM] may discontinue use of
BMC Customer Licenses for other valid business reasons.”           (Emphasis
added).
       IBM contends that under the “other valid business reasons”
language in Section 5.4, it had the right to execute AT&T’s request, for
AT&T’s own reasons, to swap out BMC’s software for IBM software in
AT&T’s mainframe. BMC defends the district court’s interpretation,
which depends on differentiating between the terms “displace” and
“discontinue,” while narrowing the ambit of “other valid business reasons”
to conclude that Section 5.4 categorically bars IBM from replacing BMC
software with IBM software in a mainframe at a customer’s request.
       We disagree with BMC’s and the district court’s interpretation of
Section 5.4 for several reasons. First, reliance on dictionary definitions of
“displace” and “discontinue” does not fully explain the section’s meaning.
A holistic reading of the provision better harmonizes the entirety of the
provision and accords with other parts of the parties’ contract. Second and
third, BMC’s interpretation either renders the descriptor “other valid
business reasons” superfluous or arbitrarily and unreasonably cabins it.
Fourth, as construed by BMC, Section 5.4 runs a serious risk of being an
unenforceable restrictive covenant.
       First, BMC contends, the verbs “displace” and “discontinue” bear
distinct meanings in Section 5.4. Thus, “displace” is “to remove from the
usual or proper place” or, in a secondary definition, to “supplant.” Displace,
WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INT’L DICTIONARY (1981). “Discontinue” means
to “break the continuity of: cease to use ….” Discontinue, WEBSTER’S

                                      8
Case: 22-20463      Document: 193-1      Page: 9     Date Filed: 04/30/2024

                                No. 22-20463

THIRD NEW INT’L DICTIONARY (1981).             BMC urges that the “non-
displacement” clause absolutely bars IBM from replacing BMC software
with its own software in a customer’s mainframe, but the “discontinue”
clause allows IBM to “discontinue” BMC software in a customer’s
mainframe, so long as IBM is not replacing BMC’s software with IBM
software.
       New York law does not countenance BMC’s stark dichotomy
between “displace” and “discontinue.” If these terms bore wholly distinct
meanings, there would be no need for Section 5.4 to say that IBM may not
“displace” under some circumstances but may “discontinue” for other
reasons. Read that way, the provision would simply state: while IBM
“cannot displace any BMC Customer Licenses with [IBM] products, [IBM]
may discontinue use of BMC Customer Licenses.” This revision of the
section, however, renders “for other valid business reasons” superfluous,
contrary to New York law. Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc., 92 N.E.3d at 748
(“[A] contract must be construed in a manner which gives effect to each and
every part, so as not to render any provision meaningless or without force or
effect.”).
       A holistic reading of Section 5.4 must make sense of the entire
sentence. Such a reading acknowledges that the “cannot displace” clause
prohibits IBM from competing unfairly with BMC by using its outsourcing
services to (a) gain inside knowledge as to how BMC’s customers use BMC
software and (b) sell IBM software to the same customers with this special
knowledge. The second clause, however, accepts the reality that IBM, in
performing outsourcing services for BMC customers, may be tasked by them
to “discontinue” BMC software for “other valid business reasons.” This
reading harmonizes all of the provision’s language in accord with state law.
Under Section 5.4, in other words, IBM could not displace or discontinue

                                     9
Case: 22-20463      Document: 193-1        Page: 10    Date Filed: 04/30/2024

                                 No. 22-20463

BMC software in a customer’s mainframe in favor of IBM software absent a
“valid (not unfairly competitive) business reason.”
       Advocating the holistic reading of Section 5.4, IBM argues that
“other valid business reasons” encompasses discontinuance of BMC’s
software in favor of its own software in AT&T’s mainframes at AT&T’s
request. Here, it is undisputed, as found by the district court, that AT&T
initiated this switchover independently and without any lobbying or influence
of IBM. Consequently, IBM contends it did not violate the provision’s non-
displacement proviso because it did not compete for or solicit AT&T’s
decision.
       In fact, the holistic interpretation of Section 5.4 is also supported by
other provisions in the parties’ agreements. Paragraph 3 of the 2008 MLA,
for instance, outlines five restrictions on IBM’s use of BMC’s software, but
not one of those bars IBM from substituting BMC’s software for IBM
software in a customer’s mainframe at the customer’s request. This court
may not rewrite the parties’ agreements to enforce a restriction that is not
there. See Salvano v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 647 N.E.2d
1298, 1302 (N.Y. 1995) (“The court’s role is limited to interpretation and
enforcement of the terms agreed to by the parties; it does not include the
rewriting of their contract and the imposition of additional terms.”).
       Another provision of the 2015 OA further supports the conclusion
that “other valid business reasons” permitted IBM to execute the software
changeover instigated by AT&T. The 2015 OA delegates to IBM the
authority to “use, access, install and have operational responsibility” for the
BMC licenses owned by licensees like AT&T, so long as IBM used those
licenses “solely for the purposes of supporting the BMC Customer who
owns such licenses.” In other words, IBM could access BMC’s software to

                                      10
Case: 22-20463         Document: 193-1          Page: 11      Date Filed: 04/30/2024

                                      No. 22-20463

assist BMC’s customers with their broad range of needs and requests.5 That
is exactly what IBM did when it executed AT&T’s policy to partially
replace BMC software with IBM software in the AT&T mainframes. In
following the customer’s request, IBM was solely “supporting the BMC
Customer” that owned the licenses. That the district court found no
violation of Section 5.1 is compatible with finding no violation of Section 5.4.
        BMC’s cramped reading of Section 5.4 to categorically bar IBM
from replacing BMC software with IBM software, even if AT&T requested
IBM to perform that task also leads to one of two absurd results. On one
hand, it would allow IBM to replace BMC’s software with any other
competing software at AT&T’s request, so long as the competing software
is not that of IBM. Alternatively, Section 5.4 would require AT&T to
discharge IBM as its IT-outsourcer if it decided to replace BMC’s software
with software of the customer’s choice, but only if it elects IBM replacement
software. Either way, once AT&T decided to switch from BMC software
to a competing software, whether that of IBM or any other seller, the damage
to BMC would be done—the customer would be lost to BMC. BMC’s
interpretation of Section 5.4 enables it to micromanage AT&T’s decision to
use IBM as an outsourcer for replacement software even after AT&T has
chosen no longer to be a BMC customer. In addition to producing absurd
results, BMC’s interpretation is commercially unreasonable and therefore
unsustainable under New York law. See, e.g., Macy’s Inc. v. Martha Stewart
Living Omnimedia, Inc., 6 N.Y.S.3d 7, 11 (App. Div. 2015) (“It is well settled
‘that a contract should not be interpreted to produce an absurd result, one

        _____________________
        5
          Notably, the district court concluded in its post-trial opinion that IBM did not
breach Section 5.1 because Section 5.1 purely required IBM to act “for the sole purpose of
supporting AT&T” when accessing and using AT&T’s BMC licenses, and “IBM used
the licenses to achieve what AT&T wanted done—and nothing more.”

                                           11
Case: 22-20463      Document: 193-1        Page: 12    Date Filed: 04/30/2024

                                 No. 22-20463

that is commercially unreasonable, or one that is contrary to the intent of the
parties.’” (quoting Cole v. Macklowe, 953 N.Y.S.2d 21, 23 (App. Div. 2012))).
       BMC’s reading of Section 5.4 is also untenable because it risks
making Section 5.4 an unenforceable illegal restriction on competition under
New York law. Courts applying New York law use a “standard akin to a
‘simple rule of reason, balanc[ing] the competing public policies in favor of
robust competition and freedom of contract,’” in determining whether to
enforce a restrictive covenant like Section 5.4.      Crye Precision LLC v.
Bennettsville Printing, 755 F. App’x. 34, 36–37 (2d Cir. 2018) (quoting Baker’s
Aid, a Div. of M. Raubvogel Co. v. Hussmann Foodservice Co., 730 F. Supp.
1209, 1214 (E.D.N.Y. 1990)). Applying that standard to this case, this court
must determine (1) “whether [BMC] has demonstrated a legitimate
business interest that warrants the enforcement of” the restriction,
“(2) “the reasonableness of the covenant[] with respect to geographic scope
and temporal duration,” and (3) “the degree of hardship that
enforce[ment]” “would inflict” on IBM. DAR & Assocs., Inc. v. Uniforce
Servs., Inc., 37 F. Supp. 2d 192, 197, 200 (E.D.N.Y. 1999).
       As applied here, we need not advance past the first criterion above.
Read as BMC advocates, Section 5.4 imposes a restriction on IBM’s
servicing of its outsourcing customers with no legitimate purposes. We start
with the proposition that IBM and BMC compete only in developing and
selling software. Thus, Section 5.4 reasonably exists to “prevent[] IBM
from leveraging its special position as an IT-outsourcer, its access to BMC
products in client environments, and the unique knowledge it thereby gains
to unfairly compete for BMC’s software clients.” But in the case of
AT&T’s decision to switch to IBM software, Section 5.4 had nothing to do
with this sort of gamesmanship by IBM. After all, as the district court found,
“AT&T independently decided to displace BMC software,” and therefore,

                                      12
Case: 22-20463        Document: 193-1         Page: 13      Date Filed: 04/30/2024

                                    No. 22-20463

“AT&T’s decisions and conduct—not IBM’s—are most consequentially
tied to BMC’s lost profits from AT&T.” (Emphasis added).
       Once AT&T independently decided to switch from BMC software
to IBM software, BMC had already “lost” the only competition it had with
IBM. Because the client made that decision without unfair influence from
IBM, BMC lost out to IBM fair and square. Under these circumstances,
there is no legitimate reason to enforce Section 5.4 against IBM.
Consequently, BMC’s interpretation of Section 5.4, which would bar IBM
from completing a software switchover a customer independently requests,
likely converts this provision into an illegal, and therefore unenforceable,
restraint on competition pursuant to state law.                 See McConnell v.
Commonwealth Pictures Corp., 166 N.E.2d 494, 496 (N.Y. 1960).6
       The only reasonable reading of Section 5.4 that comports with New
York law is the holistic reading that takes account of all the language of the
provision at issue. Under that reading, IBM could not, on its own accord,
supplant BMC’s software in AT&T’s mainframe with IBM software. But
IBM could replace BMC software with IBM software in AT&T’s
mainframe at AT&T’s request. The phrase “other valid business reasons”
unambiguously requires this result. See Greenfield, 780 N.E.2d at 171. IBM
did not breach Section 5.4 by agreeing to provide IT services to perform this
task. In concluding otherwise, the district court erred.
                                 Conclusion
       For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is
REVERSED and RENDERED.

       _____________________
       6
          The district court reached the opposite conclusion in holding that the non-
displacement provision served BMC’s “legitimate business interest” in precluding IBM
from receiving an “unfair advantage when competing with BMC in the software business.”

                                         13