2006 IBM vs. Platform Solutions Inc. (PSI) and T3 Technologies Inc. (T3)
On November 29, 2006, IBM filed a complaint against open architecture mainframe computer marketer, Platform Solutions, Inc., alleging breach of contract and patent infringement claims arising from PSI's development and sale of its IBM-compatible open architecture mainframe computer and mainframe operating systems, as well as asking the court for a declaratory judgment that IBM's refusal to license, copyrighted operating systems, and other software to PSI does not violate any antitrust laws.
Click here for the text of the Complaint...
On January 19, 2007, PSI answered and asserted counterclaims against IBM. Specifically, PSI denied the allegations in IBM's November 29, 2006 complaint, and counterclaimed that IBM violated federal antitrust and state unfair competition laws by unlawfully tying its mainframe computers to its mainframe operating systems by conditioning the sale of its operating systems on the continued use of an IBM mainframe computer. Additionally, PSI asked the court for a declaratory judgment that PSI did not infringe IBM's patents, as well as other equitable relief.
Click here for the text of PSI's Answer and Counterclaims...
On March 8, 2007, IBM filed a reply and answer denying PSI's counterclaims.
Click here for the text of IBM's Reply...
On August 17, 2007, IBM filed an amended complaint against PSI for patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, copyright infringement, breach of contract, and patent infringement [sic], and asking for an injunction precluding PSI and "those persons acting in active concert or in participation with it" from making, using, and distributing its IBM-compatible open architecture mainframe computer and mainframe operating systems, damages, as well as a declaration that IBM is authorized to terminate its licenses to PSI without violating antitrust laws. This injunction, if granted, could potentially apply to other resellers.
Click here for the text of IBM's Amended Complaint...
On September 21, 2007, PSI answered IBM's amended complaint and counterclaimed that IBM violated federal antitrust and state unfair competition laws by unlawfully tying its mainframe computers to its mainframe operating systems by conditioning the sale of its operating systems on the continued use of an IBM mainframe computer. Additionally, PSI asked the court for a declaratory judgment that PSI did not infringe IBM's patents and that IBM's patents are invalid, as well as other equitable relief.
Click here for the text of PSI's Amended Answer...
On October 9, 2007, IBM filed a reply on its amended complaint and answer to PSI's amended counterclaims.
Click here for the text of IBM's Answer to PSI's Amended Answer...
On November 26, 2007, mainframe systems integrator T3 Technologies, Inc. filed a Motion to Intervene as Counterclaim-Plaintiff. T3 claimed that efforts to sell its computer systems that incorporate PSI's technology and are lower-priced substitutes for IBM's mainframes were stymied by improper licensing and tying practices that IBM used to prevent competition from systems containing PSI's technology. T3 sought to: (a) assert its own claims that it was injured by IBM's misconduct toward PSI; and (b) defend itself against IBM's request for an injunction that could potentially prevent T3 from making, using, or distributing IBM-compatible open architecture mainframe computer systems that contain PSI-technology.
Click here for the text of the Memorandum in Support of T3's Motion to Intervene...
Click here for the text of T3's Motion to Intervene as a Counterclaim Plaintiff...
Click here for the text of T3's Exhibit A...
Click here for the text of T3's Notice of Motion to Intervene as a Counterclaim Plaintiff...
On April 16, 2008, PSI filed a Petition for Summary Judgment to have two of IBM’s claims thrown out – trade secret misappropriations and tortious interference with contractual relations. The legal basis for this request was the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act ("CUTSA”) which gives an aggrieved party three years to make a claim beginning when the complainant discovers its secrets have been taken or misused. In 1999, Amdahl transferred mainframe diagnostic software to PSI. In 2001, PSI told IBM about this transfer and IBM and PSI entered into discussions where IBM would receive Amdahl’s diagnostics and PSI would receive a license to IBM’s written technical specifications. During these discussions, IBM never said the diagnostic software that Amdahl transferred to PSI was in any way illegal. PSI stated that if IBM wished to claim that PSI had misappropriated its intellectual property, it should have raised some concerns at that time.
Click here for the text of PSI's Petition...
Click here for the text of PSI's Statement of Undisputed Facts...
On July 2, 2008, shortly after IBM’s acquisition of PSI, IBM and PSI filed a joint stipulation of dismissal of all claims and counterclaims that had been asserted against one another. This stipulation had no effect on the claims between IBM and T3.
Click here for the text of the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal of Claims between IBM and PSI…
On September 2, 2009, IBM filed two motions for summary judgment. The first motion asked for an order granting IBM summary judgment on the grounds that T3 had failed to define a proper relevant market in which IBM has market power or monopoly power. The second motion sought a summary judgment on the grounds that IBM had no obligation to license its intellectual property to its competitors and that its refusal to license its operating systems was not an illegal tie.
Click here for the text of IBM’s Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment on Relevant Market...
On September 30, 2009, Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan, United States District Judge, granted IBM’s motion for summary judgment for the reasons stated in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and dismissed T3’s complaint. As a result, the case was closed on September 30th.
Email Article