Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Lantec, Inc. v. Novell, Inc.

Lantec, Inc. v. Novell, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

September 19, 2002, Filed

No. 01-4109

Opinion

 [*1008]  BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge.

While the Microsoft antitrust case has captured much media attention, this antitrust case is just as important to the computer program developers involved. Here, the Lantec companies appeal a district court order dismissing state-law contract and promissory estoppel claims on summary judgment. The Lantec companies also argue the district court incorrectly granted Novell, Inc.'s ("Novell") motion for judgment as a matter of law on several  [*1009]  antitrust claims. The facts and legal issues [**2]  in this case are complex and will be discussed at length. However, the Lantec companies' basic argument is Novell drove them out of business.

We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Beginning in the mid-1980s, Novell sold a network operating system for connecting computers called NetWare. James E. Gaskin, Mastering NetWare 5, 20 (1999). A network operating system "is the software used to connect computers and other devices, share resources, transfer files, and perform other network services and activities." Sue Plumley, Network Administration Survival Guide 25 (1999). It controls access to the network and allows users to share data. Id.

Novell also distributed Message Handling System and Global Message Handling System. These products were messaging transport agents 1 for NetWare. A messaging transport agent essentially acts as the computer version of a post office; it routes, stores, and delivers messages sent by e-mail or groupware programs. 2 Message Handling System and Global Message Handling System were designed to be used with the NetWare operating system and groupware programs. In addition [**3]  to routing messages, Message Handling System and Global Message Handling System allow groupware to access security features, printing, file sharing, and other data shared through the NetWare operating system.

Although Novell began marketing Message Handling System and Global Message Handling System in the early 1990s, it did not immediately develop groupware programs to be used with Message Handling System and Global Message [**4]  Handling System. Instead, independent software programers developed this groupware. By making the application program interfaces 3 in Message Handling System and Global Message Handling System publicly available, Novell enabled independent programers to write groupware. Software designed using the Message Handling System and Global Message Handling System application program interfaces can communicate with Message Handling System or Global Message Handling System and therefore with NetWare.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

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

306 F.3d 1003 *; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 19606 **; 2002-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P73,807; 49 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 147; 59 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1251

LANTEC, INC., a Utah corporation; LANCOMPANY INFORMATICA LTDA., a Brazil corporation; LANTEC INFORMATICA LTDA., a Brazil corporation; LANTRAINING INFORMATICA LTDA., a Brazil corporation, Plaintiffs - Counter-Defendants - Appellants, v. NOVELL, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant - Counter-Claimant - Appellee.

Prior History:  [**1]  Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Utah. (D.C. No. 2:95-CV-97-ST).

 Lantec, Inc. v. Novell, Inc., 146 F. Supp. 2d 1140, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7712 (D. Utah 2001).

Disposition: Affirmed.

CORE TERMS

Message, district court, promise, groupware, Manufacturer, merger, conspiracy, repudiation, software, developers, geographic, products, promissory estoppel, network, verified complaint, interfaces, relevant market, termination, monopolize, operating system, alleged threat, matter of law, summary judgment, conspired, antitrust claim, deposition, conclusory, antitrust, transport, worldwide

Civil Procedure, Discovery, Methods of Discovery, General Overview, Appeals, Summary Judgment Review, Standards of Review, Summary Judgment, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Supporting Materials, Discovery Materials, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Business & Corporate Compliance, Contract Formation, Consideration, Sufficient Consideration, Contracts Law, Commercial Law (UCC), Standards of Performance & Liability, Breach, Excuse & Repudiation, Anticipatory Repudiation, Breach, Anticipatory Repudiation, Sales (Article 2), Reviewability of Lower Court Decisions, Preservation for Review, Abuse of Discretion, Criminal Law & Procedure, Abuse of Discretion, Evidence, Affidavits, Evidence, Types of Evidence, Documentary Evidence, Contracts Law, Types of Contracts, Oral Agreements, Governments, Courts, Authority to Adjudicate, Promissory Estoppel, Enforcement of Promises, Memoranda of Law, Antitrust & Trade Law, Price Fixing & Restraints of Trade, Vertical Restraints, Mergers & Acquisitions Law, Antitrust, Vertical Acquisitions, Tying Arrangements, Weight & Sufficiency, Trials, Judgment as Matter of Law, Regulated Practices, Market Definition, Relevant Market, Immigration Law, Admission of Immigrants & Nonimmigrants, Visa Eligibility & Issuance, Issuance of Visas, Market Definition, Monopolies & Monopolization, Conspiracy to Monopolize, Elements, Inchoate Crimes, Conspiracy, Sherman Act, Sherman Act, Healthcare Law, Healthcare Litigation, Antitrust Actions, Physicians, International Law, Dispute Resolution, Evidence, Witnesses, Admissibility, Expert Witnesses, Scientific Evidence, Standards for Admissibility, Testimony, Expert Witnesses, Daubert Standard, Helpfulness, Relevant Market, Geographic Market Definition, Claims, Circumstantial & Direct Evidence, Frivolous Appeals