Legal Opinion
Ashton-Tate Corp. v. Ross
District Court, N.D. California
Decided April 4, 1989No. C-88-2844 DLJPublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
JENSEN, District Judge.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment was heard by the Court on January 25, 1989. Appearing for plaintiff Ashton-Tate Corporation were Cynthia C. Cannady and Leslie A. Fithian of Fenwick, Davis and West. Appearing for defendants Richard A. Ross and Bravo Technologies were Paul N. McCloskey and Fenn C. Horton, III.
This action involves a computer spreadsheet program, “Full Impact”, which plaintiff developed and is currently marketing, and which defendants allege infringes upon their proprietary interests under…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Foley v. Interactive Data Corp.California Supreme Court · 1988
- Kaiser Cement Corporation, a Delaware Corporation v. Fischbach and Moore, Inc., the Howard P. Foley Co., a District of Columbia CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- Seaman's Direct Buying Service, Inc. v. Standard Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1984
- Apple Computer, Inc., a California Corporation v. Franklin Computer Corporation, a Pennsylvania CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1983
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Alice Childress v. Clarice Taylor, Paul B. Berkowsky, the Moms Company, and Ben CaldwellCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1991
- Ashton-Tate Corp. v. RossCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- Mediostream, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 2012
- Forcier v. Microsoft Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 2000
- Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 1992
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.