Radical Software & Consulting Inc.
Providing the Best Solution
Copyright Sample Case Two
Copyright: Middleware used in Processing ATM, POS and Check Images
                          
  • Engaged by        : Defense

  • Result                 : Defense was granted Summary Judgement.

  • Subject Matter   : Software between processing service and bank's
    systems.


In early 2012 through early 2014 Mr. Allport was retained by the attorney for a
large U.S. regional bank to aid in the defense in a case where a plaintiff
accused their client of: copying the plaintiff’s source code to create a new
application and violating the plaintiff’s copyright. In fact the plaintiff as
engaged by the bank to code the middleware software and used that
opportunity to: incorrectly claim the code as theirs and obtain a copyright on
the same code. The plaintiff then sued the bank for: copying their code and
violating their copyright.

Two years after Mr. Allport was engaged the attorney for the defendant used
Mr. Allport’s expert report to sue for Summary Judgment and to get the
plaintiff’s case dismissed. The court agreed with the defendant that they did
not copy the plaintiff’s code or violate their copyright and dismissed the case.
In addition the plaintiff had to pay a settlement to the defendant.

The subject of the case was software that acted as a middleware in the
processing of ATM and Point of Sales (POS) transactions. One party was a
global provider of support for ATM and POS devices that sends and receives
transactions to the cardholder’s bank. This entity was called Evertec. The
other party in processing a transaction was the internal systems of the bank.


Mr. Allport’s engagement included the following:

  • Reading depositions and using the information.
  • Working closely with the defense attorney.
  • Providing expertise on the messaging formats.
  • Using an extensive knowledge of IP.
  • Understanding the interactions between parties in a transaction.
  • Providing knowledge of “Check 21”,also known as Check Images
  • Performing a line by line code comparison of two applications.
  • Analysis of the plaintiff's copyright using “Nimmer on Copyright”
  • Using and extensive use of the information from the U.S.C.O.
  • Comparing the code held at the Library of Congress to the code the
    plaintiff claimed was the basis for the copyright and showing the sets of
    code were not the same.
  • Extensive use of form, flow and function.
  • Responding to the Expert Report delivered by the plaintiff.
  • Mr. Allport's Expert Report was approximately 500 pages long.
  • Mr. Allport assisted in the deposition of the plaintiff’s expert.