Compuware Corp. v. Serena Software Int'l, Inc.

Compuware Corp. v. Serena Software Int'l, Inc.

Opinion

 [*817] ORDER

On October 19, 1999, the Defendant, Serena Software International, Inc. (Serena), filed a motion, in which it asked this Court to reconsider its Order of October 5, 1999. The challenged Order, which incorporated the conclusions that had been reached by the Court during a hearing on  [*818]  September 21, 1999, denied Serena's request for the entry of a summary judgment. It had been, and continues to be, Serena's position that the claim for trade secret misappropriation by the Plaintiff, Compuware Corporation (Compuware), must fail for lack of a secret because the allegedly sensitive information had been open for public inspection. ¹

 [**2]  In the present motion, Serena submits that the failure of the Court to rule on the principal legal question in its application for dispositive relief (to wit, whether "trade secret protection [was] lost when Compuware sought copyright registration of its user manuals" and deposited unredacted copies of those manuals for public inspection at the Copyright Office of the United States) constitutes a palpable defect which, if corrected, would produce a different outcome.

Although this Court did not explicitly delineate the contours of its opinion in the Order of October 5, 1999, its central ruling clearly can be inferred from the text. ² Thus, for the reasons that have been set forth below, the Court disagrees with the arguments that have been advanced by Serena.

This case involves a dispute between the parties as to whether the claim of Compuware, who contends that Serena misappropriated its trade secrets, has any legal efficacy. Compuware develops and licenses proprietary computer [**3]  systems, including its File-AID products. A copy of each of the File-Aid products at issue here had been submitted to the Copyright Office of the United States for registration prior to the commencement of this litigation. ³ [**4]  These copies were to be open for public inspection, ⁴ and, with the exception of certain source codes, none of the material was redacted. ⁵ Even so, there is no evidence that the products or their contents were known to persons inside or outside of the industry or among the general public during any of the times at issue. There is no evidence that anyone outside of the Compuware corporate structure, its customers, or the Copyright Office viewed the material prior to the commencement of this litigation. ⁶ On the other hand, there is evidence that Compuware took significant precautionary steps to restrict the publication of its material, including the File-AID products, to its employees and prospective and actual customers. ⁷ Access to this material was granted by Compuware only if and when the employee or customer executed an agreement which required complete secrecy of the form and content of the materials. ⁸

 [**5]  [*819]   II

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.