Sistemas complexos inc banktrade

Sistemas complexos inc banktrade
Exclusivamente dedicado à automação de finanças comerciais.
SOLUÇÕES DE FINANZAS COMERCIAIS QUE COLOCARAM O CORPORATE IN CONTROL.
SOLUÇÕES DE FINANCIAMENTO DE COMÉRCIO TOTALMENTE ESCALÁVEL EMPRESARIAL.
TRABALHANDO COM PARCEIROS DA INDÚSTRIA PARA ENTREGAR AS MELHORES SOLUÇÕES DE CLASSE TF.
SOLUÇÕES GLOBAIS ATENDENDO MERCADOS LOCAIS.
Nosso aplicativo de back-office, BankTrade, tem sido nossa solução âncora desde 1978, e agora está sendo usado por mais de 100 bancos de finanças comerciais em todo o mundo. A BankTrade atende de forma funcional a todos os produtos tradicionais da Trade Finance, mantendo os mais altos padrões da indústria de acordo com as Melhores Práticas Globais.
A ClientTrade é a nossa solução de enfrentamento corporativo de longa data, que está sendo usada por mais de 30.000 empresas em todo o mundo. Na sua versão mais recente, a CTNet, é uma solução J2EE baseada na Web que pode ser totalmente integrada com o BankTrade, nosso aplicativo de back-office, bem como com outros sistemas terceirizados de Trade Finance.
Para implantações de aplicativos, a BT Systems, LLC oferece gerenciamento de projetos, integração / análise técnica, treinamento funcional e técnico e suporte funcional e técnico ao longo da vida de cada projeto.
Nesta seção, você pode descobrir mais sobre as próximas feiras e eventos que atendemos durante o ano. Venha nos encontrar e nos avise nos requisitos do seu negócio!

Sistemas complexos inc banktrade
Detecção humana de ponta, reconhecimento de comportamento e consciência situacional.
Redes de sensores, mineração de dados e tecnologia de simulação para a indústria petroquímica moderna.
Defesa e Segurança.
Algoritmos de fusão adaptativos que combinam sensores de radar, infravermelho e acústicos para o setor aeroespacial.
Big Sensor Data.
e Inteligência Artificial.
SOLUÇÕES PERSONALIZADAS EM SUA NECESSIDADE.
EXPERIMENTE NOVAS FRONTEIRAS DE TEHCNOLOGY.
O COMPLEX SYSTEM INC. (CSI) é baseado nos princípios de fabricar produtos de qualidade e fornecer soluções confiáveis ​​e distintas para nossos clientes. Procuramos fornecer aos nossos clientes software, subsistemas e equipamentos de bordo de que necessitam, além de outros serviços de alto valor agregado, tanto no mercado civil quanto no de Defesa Nacional.
Por que escolher o sistema complexo?
A Complex System Inc. oferece uma gama de soluções de software Video Analytic que garante aos nossos clientes as mais recentes tecnologias com total tranquilidade. Nossas soluções Video Analytic são altamente robustas e consistem em vários novos recursos e algoritmos que são inigualáveis ​​no campo da Visão Computacional.
ÚLTIMAS NOTÍCIAS.
Construindo um Estado da Estrutura Analítica de Arte.
Temos o prazer de anunciar que a CSI está desenvolvendo uma Estrutura Analítica de Vídeo Genérico para funcionar em diferentes tipos de ambientes (UAV, Indoor, Outdoor e outros), para vários tipos de dados e rastreamento de eventos. Essa estrutura fornecerá ao usuário diferentes algoritmos de detecção adequados a diferentes cenários, proporcionando maior flexibilidade para implantações em grande ou pequena escala.
Soluções que oferecemos
Aplicações de visão computacional e sensores.
Análise de vídeo. Detecção de Objetos.
Usando vídeo de câmeras IP ou UAVs Complex System Inc. Os Algoritmos de Visão Computacional podem detectar, observar e compreender ambientes internos e externos com grande precisão. Acompanhe pedestres e veículos, monitore suas atividades e tome decisões inteligentes sobre suas intenções. Calcule riscos, evite lesões e modele padrões de comportamento com soluções flexíveis da Video Analytic. Também estamos dando solução em nuvem para nossa análise de vídeo. Você pode baixar nosso aplicativo de streaming de vídeo e aplicativo de monitoramento. Seguindo o manual do usuário, você pode facilmente configurar uma conexão com o nosso servidor.
Gás de petróleo. Suporte de perfuração em tempo real.
Os dados de perfuração em tempo real permitem uma melhor compreensão dos eventos que ocorrem no local da sonda e possibilitam melhorar a colaboração em tempo real e o suporte à decisão dos engenheiros de perfuração. A CSI desenvolveu uma ferramenta de software que é capaz de identificar e prever eventos geológicos e de perfuração combinados à frente de informações de perfuração em tempo real, para que o sistema de perfuração do usuário possa direcionar o poço enquanto gira a coluna de perfuração para aumentar a ROP penetração) e reduzir o custo de perfuração.
Defesa e Segurança. Algoritmos de fusão adaptativos.
A CSI desenvolveu novos conceitos e abordagens nas áreas de Adaptive Data Fusion e Sensor Resource Management. Utilizando radares de curto e longo alcance, sensores infravermelhos e acústicos feitos para iniciativas aeroespaciais de defesa, nosso sistema pode generalizar dados recebidos para um Sistema de Suporte à Decisão. A CSI também desenvolveu um ambiente de simulação para testar eficientemente esses métodos e identificar regras operacionais relevantes.

COMPLEX SYSTEMS, INC. V. ABN AMRO BANK N. V.
COMPLEX SYSTEMS, INC., Autor, v. ABN AMRO BANK N. V., Réu.
Tribunal Distrital dos Estados Unidos, S. D. Nova york. leagle / images / logo. png.
Advogado (s) aparecendo para o caso.
Complex Systems, Inc., Autora, representada por Jeffrey Ira Kaplan, Sorin Royer Cooper LLC, Michael Robert Gilman, Gilman & amp; Pergament LLP, Alan Stuart Gruber, LLC SorinRand, Eleanor Martine Lackman, Cowan, DeBaets, Abrahams & amp; Sheppard LLP, Jonathan Michael Doloff, Kaplan Gilman & amp; Pergament LLP & amp; Lawrence Bennett Goodwin, Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & amp; Friedman LLP.
ABN AMRO Bank N. V., Réu, representado por Howard Schiffman, Dickstein Shapiro LLP, Katherine Layden Schuerman, Schulte Roth & amp; Zabel LLP, Michael Everett Swartz, Schulte Roth & amp; Zabel LLP, Christopher M. McLean, Mark E. Thabet & amp; John Charles Garces, Schulte Roth & amp; Zabel LLP.
OPINIÃO & amp; ORDEM.
KATHERINE B. FORREST, Juiz Distrital.
A história dessa disputa é relativamente simples, apesar do fato de ter sido julgada por quase seis anos. Em 2007, o réu ABN AMRO Bank N. V. ("ABN") vendeu alguns de seus ativos & # x2014; incluindo as subsidiárias LaSalle Bank e ABN AMRO Information Technology Services Company, Inc. ("TI") & # x2014; para o Bank of America ("BAC") ("a transação LaSalle") por US $ 21 bilhões.
A TI era o licenciado de um aplicativo de software criado e licenciado pela Complex Systems, Inc. ("CSI"), chamada BankTrade. Em virtude de sua afiliação corporativa com o ABN, o ABN tinha o direito de usar o BankTrade por meio da TI e com base na licença de TI. Após a transação com a LaSalle, a TI permaneceu como licenciada. O ABN não possuía uma licença separada e não era um licenciado.
Isso não impediu que o ABN usasse o BankTrade, no entanto. O ABN continuou a usar o BankTrade ininterruptamente até hoje. Talvez o ABN tenha assumido que, após a venda de TI, poderia facilmente obter sua própria licença da CSI; talvez assumisse que, de alguma forma, uma vez que a TI não mais precisasse da licença, a TI poderia transferi-la de volta; Talvez o ABN tenha negligenciado certos detalhes no meio de fechar um negócio de US $ 21 bilhões negociado rapidamente. Independentemente disso, a evidência é clara de que no momento em que a transação LaSalle foi fechada, o ABN não tinha mais uma licença para usar o BankTrade. A evidência é igualmente clara que durante o período de intervenção, como tentou sem sucesso negociar um por um preço baixo, o ABN sabia que não tinha mais a licença para o BankTrade. No entanto, o ABN se agachou e continuou em ritmo acelerado, mesmo depois (e apesar do fato de que) a CSI entrou com uma ação por infração em 2008. Isso por si só pode não ser inesperado, mas a decisão de não desenvolver um plano de backup é perdida. .
Após seis anos de violação ininterrupta pelo ABN, a CSI prevaleceu sobre a responsabilidade. Agora, procura obter uma medida cautelar para evitar uma infração certa e contínua. 1.
O ABN resiste. O ABN argumenta que o BankTrade é importante demais para o seu negócio de trade finance para deixar de usá-lo. está profundamente integrado como um componente de uma plataforma técnica complicada usada em 22 países (chamada "GTP"). O ABN argumenta que tentou negociar uma licença, mas a CSI tem sido comercialmente irracional e que este Tribunal deve, portanto, permitir que o ABN use o BankTrade perpetuamente em troca de uma licença imposta pelo Tribunal. complete com termos financeiros e outros.
Levada à sua conclusão lógica, esta posição pode ser reduzida às seguintes proposições:
& # x2014; Se um aplicativo de software é realmente bastante útil e confiável (o desenvolvedor, sem dúvida, esperaria por ambos), uma vez licenciado, um licenciado tem uma licença perpétua de fato e de jure; & # x2014; Quando um licenciante atua de forma comercial irracional no contexto de uma negociação para renovação de um aplicativo de software útil e confiável, um licenciado pode simplesmente interromper as negociações, continuar o uso e buscar a assistência do Tribunal para definir uma taxa de licença e os outros termos , irrevogavelmente mudando a alavancagem em qualquer discussão de licenciamento; e & # x2014; Se um infrator apostar pode obter uma licença pelo seu preço preferido e apostar errado, o ônus dessa aposta recai sobre o licenciante & # x2014; não no infrator.
A Corte se recusa a aceitar essas proposições. 2 A proposta da CSI para medida cautelar é CONCEDIDA.
I. VISÃO GERAL FACTUAL.
Em 1997, a subsidiária da ABN, a TI e a CSI assinaram um contrato inicial de licença para o BankTrade ("Contrato de Licença"). O Contrato de Licença permitiu que a TI utilizasse o BankTrade em conexão com os serviços de processamento de financiamento comercial do ABN na América do Norte. 3 (Oposição do Requerente a Moção dos Requerentes por Injunção Permanente, nos termos de 17 USC & # 167; 502, e para a Destruição ou Retorno de Todas as Cópias do BankTrade, nos termos de 17 USC & # 167; 503 (b) ("Def. 's Opp'n "), 29 de novembro de 2013, ECF No. 349.) Em todos os tempos, a TI era o licenciado do Banktrade. O Contrato de Licença permitia que afiliadas corporativas de TI usassem o BankTrade. (Declaração de Jeffrey I. Kaplan em apoio ao Memorando Combinado da Complex System, Inc. em oposição à Ação do ABN para julgamento sumário e em apoio à Ação da CST para julgamento sumário ("Kaplan 8/3/12 Decl."), Ex A, 8 de agosto de 2012, ECF No. 170.)
Em 2000, o ABN decidiu consolidar suas operações de processamento de financiamento comercial e usar o BankTrade globalmente. (Def.'s Opp'n at 6.) Consequentemente, em 2001 e novamente em 2002, CSI e IT firmaram adendas ao Contrato de Licença, para taxas adicionais de licenciamento. (Id.) O adendo de 2001 expandiu os direitos de TI ao: (1) permitir que a TI usasse o BankTrade em todo o mundo; (2) expandir o acesso da TI ao código-fonte do BankTrade; (3) fornecer módulos adicionais dentro do sistema; e (4) permitir insourcing ilimitado. (Def .'s Opp'n at 6; 3/14 Tr. 14-15.) Após os acordos, a CSI e a TI trabalharam juntas para personalizar e integrar o BankTrade na plataforma de processamento de financiamento de comércio global do ABN (novamente, "GTP"). (Bostonian-Spratt Decl. & # 182; & # 182; 13-21.)
O Contrato de Licença e os adendos desde que a TI fosse o licenciado; enquanto o contrato não era transferível, ele poderia ser atribuído a subsidiárias, afiliadas, ou a qualquer controladora direta ou indireta, ou a qualquer subsidiária ou afiliada dessa matriz. (6/21/13 Opinião e Ordem em 4.) O Contrato de Licença forneceu o seguinte escopo de uso:
A Licença concedida sob este Contrato autoriza o Licenciado a usar um número necessário de cópias do Sistema em forma legível por máquina para atender a todas as entidades da América do Norte (ou seja, Canadá, Estados Unidos, México) conforme listado abaixo, conforme permitido pelo Contrato de Licença. o Licenciador, em qualquer local. As cópias devem ser usadas somente para processar o trabalho bancário interno do Licenciado de qualquer empresa matriz, subsidiária ou afiliada, direta ou indireta, do Licenciado, e não para qualquer outro propósito de entidade. Uma controladora direta ou indireta, subsidiária ou afiliada da Licens [ee] deve ser definida como qualquer entidade que seja pelo menos 80% detida pelo ABN-AMRO Bank N. V. e / ou ABN-AMRO North America. . . . Nenhum direito de imprimir ou copiar, no todo ou em parte, o Sistema é concedido por este meio, exceto conforme expressamente previsto.
(Id.) O adendo de 2001 adicionou um termo, "Uso estendido do sistema", que forneceu:
A licença para o uso do Sistema concedido ao Licenciado sob o Contrato de Licença é estendida para incluir: 1) o direito de usar o Sistema para processar o trabalho de entidades comerciais e corporativas não relacionadas sem restrição; e 2) o direito de usar o Sistema globalmente sem restrição geográfica. Tal uso estendido pode ser referido aqui como "Insourcing".
(Kaplan 8/3/12 Decl., Ex. B.)
Em outubro de 2007, o ABN foi alvo de uma oferta hostil; respondeu, inter alia, negociando e fechando rapidamente o seu próprio negócio: vender vários activos, incluindo as suas subsidiárias TI e LaSalle Bank, para a BAC (mais uma vez, "LaSalle Transaction"). 4 (Def.'s Opp'n at 7.) No momento da venda, o LaSalle Bank e outras entidades do ABN usaram ativamente o BankTrade em seus negócios. O Contrato de Licença fornecido para tal uso por afiliadas corporativas. Antes do fechamento da LaSalle Transaction, a TI não atribuiu o Contrato de Licença ao ABN. (Veja id. Em 2-3.) Com o fechamento da transação LaSalle, o contrato de licença foi com a TI para BAC. A partir do fechamento, o ABN deixou de ser afiliado (ou controlador) de TI; não tinha mais o direito de usar o BankTrade de forma derivada com base nos direitos de licenciamento de TI. No entanto, o ABN continuou usando o BankTrade pós-fusão e o ABN admite que continua a usar ativamente o BankTrade hoje. (Pl. Mem. At 3.) 5.
Não há dúvida de que o ABN sabia que não tinha uma licença para usar o BankTrade após a LaSalle Transaction e que continuava a usar o software apesar desse fato inconveniente. Uma cópia do contrato de compra e venda entre a BAC e a ABN prevê claramente que será garantida a licença à BAC (em vez da ABN). (Kaplan 8/3/12 Decl., Ex. D; 6 4/7 Tr 6).
O ABN entendeu que não tinha os direitos necessários. Um gráfico sem data listando os contratos de licença para vários aplicativos de software mostra que tanto o ABN quanto o LaSalle Bank usariam o BankTrade. (Kaplan 8/3/12 Decl., Ex. V.) O gráfico indica que o LaSalle Bank (incluindo TI) é a "entidade signatária" para a licença do BankTrade. (Id.) Coloque em termos contundentes, foi o licenciado.
Em 29 de fevereiro de 2008, Tom Trujillo, da BAC, escreveu à CSI que a licença do BankTrade "permanece com a entidade contratante da LaSalle [por exemplo, (entidade que está entre as compradas pelo Bank of America)." (Id. Às 9 (citando Kaplan 8/3/12 Decl., Ex. F).)
Um e-mail interno do ABN de março de 2008 afirma: "Como todos sabem, a BAC ainda possui o software BankTrade. A BAC declarou que não estará fora da versão 6.2 até outubro [2008] nem procuraremos que a BAC associe este contrato a [ABN] até o final deste ano. Os funcionários ou contratados da [ABN] não devem manipular o software / código-fonte. Ele deve ser gerenciado pela BAC ou seus contratados somente neste momento. " (Id. Em 10 (citando Kaplan 8/3/12 Decl., Ex. L).)
Em 3 de março de 2008, Sheldon Goldfarb, um advogado do RBS (que adquiriu a ABN), escreveu à CSI que "a [ABN] não faz parte do Contrato de Licença". (Id. (Citando Kaplan 8/3/12 Decl., Ex. H).)
Em 11 de abril de 2008, Holly Lussier do RBS escreveu para Warren Browne no CSI: "Eu gostaria de agradecer a você e aos outros membros por terem se reunido conosco ontem. De acordo com essa discussão, nós confirmamos com você que o BAC como sucessor em interesse [IT] é atualmente o licenciado sob o Contrato de Licença, todos os adendos a ele e o [contrato] que se segue. Nós gostaríamos de atribuir os Contratos de volta ao ABN. " Identidade. 11 (citando Kaplan 8/3/12 Decl., Ex. G).)
Um documento interno do ABN datado de 18 de junho de 2008 afirma: "[CSI] enviou um aviso ao ABN 0 declarando que o ABN estava em quebra de contrato. O ABN está trabalhando com o BAC para apresentar nossa posição, que afirma que dentro do TSA há uma licença implícita para o ABN Uma vez que o BAC concorda com a posição do ABN, o ABN pode se aproximar do [CSI] O problema com [CSI] não será resolvido até 7/1/08 ... Nós precisamos ir adiante independentemente. " (Kaplan 8/3/12 Decl., Ex. X (ênfase adicionada).)
Um contrato de agosto de 2008 entre ABN e RBS, BAC e BAC Services Company, Inc., anteriormente IT, estabelece um acordo entre ABN e BAC pelo qual a BAC "transfere" o BankTrade para o ABN e em troca, o ABN concorda em indenizar e inocentar a BAC. CSI deve trazer qualquer reclamação contra ele. Identidade. Ex. FF; Declaração Suplementar de Jeffrey I. Kaplan ("Kaplan Decl."), Ex. B, 25 de outubro de 2013, ECF 316.) Nenhuma disposição do Contrato de Licença permite tal transferência entre empresas não afiliadas. O contrato de agosto de 2008 indica que o BAC concorda em cooperar com o ABN em litígios, não se comunicar com a CSI e não reivindicar quaisquer direitos de propriedade sobre o Contrato de Licença. (Id.) O BAC também concorda em cooperar com o ABN durante o litígio e reconhecer a ABN como proprietária do Contrato de Licença. (Id.) 7 É claro que essa suposta transferência prova a responsabilidade: teria sido desnecessário se o ABN tivesse quaisquer direitos então existentes à BankTrade.
Um documento interno (sem data) contém uma entrada datada de 31 de março de 2009 que afirma: "A CSI deve exigir uma quantia significativa em honorários para esta atribuição. Os advogados da BAC e da RBS concordam ... que a BAC não pode atribuir a contrato sem consentimento da CSI. "(Kaplan 8/3/12 Decl., Ex. X (ênfase adicionada); ver também 21/6/13 Parecer e Ordem em 11.)
Apesar de tudo isso, a ABN admite que não iniciou seriamente o trabalho necessário para fazer a transição do BankTrade. (Veja 3/14 Tr. 167-68.) Na audiência de prova sobre esta moção, quando perguntado por que o ABN não parou de usar o BankTrade, Dermot Canavan, atualmente o Chefe Regional de Produto Comercial para Europa, Oriente Médio e África para RBS (anteriormente, ABN), declarou:
Não é algo que estamos dispostos a fazer. Temos um conjunto de processos que funcionam agora e para substituir todos esses processos através da implementação de um novo sistema é uma enorme quantidade de trabalho, é uma tarefa importante. Isso não nos dá nenhuma vantagem comercial extra. Não podemos dar nada aos nossos clientes amanhã se colocarmos o novo sistema. E isso é uma grande distração. Precisamos encontrar muitas pessoas para colocar os novos sistemas, incorporar os novos sistemas, remover os sistemas antigos em 22 países. É uma tarefa enorme.
II. HISTÓRICO PROCEDIMENTAL.
Em 25 de agosto de 2008, a CSI entrou com esta ação. (ECF No. 1.) Em sua Reclamação original, a CSI buscou, entre outras medidas, uma liminar permanente. (Ver Compl. & # 182; 76, 25 de agosto de 2008, ECF No. 1.) Em 29 de dezembro de 2008, a CSI apresentou uma queixa alterada. (ECF No. 16.) A queixa alterada também continha um pedido para a entrada de uma injunção permanente. (Am. Compl. & # 182; & # 182; 55, 66, 72, 79, A, 29 de dezembro de 2008, ECF No. 16.) Em 4 de maio de 2009, a ABN apresentou sua Resposta. (ECF No. 27.) O alívio que a CSI está buscando nunca esteve em dúvida.
Em 30 de junho de 2012, o ABN apresentou uma moção para julgamento sumário, alegando que o ABN manteve a propriedade sobre a licença do BankTrade após a LaSalle Transaction. (ECF No. 159.) Em 8 de agosto de 2012, a CSI entrou com um movimento cruzado para julgamento sumário, argumentando que a TI não atribuiu a licença antes da LaSalle Transaction e, portanto, o ABN não tinha mais o direito de operar o BankTrade. (ECF No. 170.) 8.
Em 5 de dezembro de 2012, este assunto foi reatribuído ao abaixo assinado, e em 20 de março de 2013, a Corte negou a moção do ABN para julgamento sumário e concedeu o movimento cruzado da CSI para julgamento sumário. (ECF No. 184.) Em 21 de junho de 2013, a Corte emitiu uma Opinião corrigida & amp; Ordem. (ECF No. 257.) A Corte determinou que, embora o ABN tivesse a capacidade de pré-fechamento para ceder sua licença do BankTrade sem custo ou penalidade, não o fez; não poderia realizar retroativamente tal atribuição após o fechamento sem o acordo da CSI. (6/21/13 Order at 2.) Esse acordo não foi alcançado entre as partes e a Corte determinou que o uso contínuo do BankTrade pelo ABN não era, portanto, licenciado. (Identidade.)
Em 18 de abril de 2013, a CSI apresentou uma moção para julgamento sumário sobre as defesas restantes do ABN. (ECF No. 202.) Posteriormente, e de particular relevância aqui, em 1º de novembro de 2013, o ABN apresentou uma moção liminar para excluir evidências de lucros indiretos. (ECF No. 327.) Em contraste com o atual argumento do ABN de que o BankTrade é um componente central e insubstituível do GTP, o ABN minimizou sua importância em relação a esta moção, argumentando que o BankTrade é simplesmente um aplicativo de software de back-office. (Ver Memorando de Direito do Recorrente em Apoio à sua Ação Limite de Danos sob a Seção 50403) da Lei de Direitos Autorais ("Mem. Da Lei de Valores Mobiliários" de 3 de novembro de 2013, ECF Nº. 328). O BankTrade era, embora fosse necessário, insignificante, substituível e um fator não nos lucros do ABN ABN explicou: "Enquanto o ABN usa o BankTrade para processar cartas de crédito e garantias, o ABN também usa eletricidade, telefones e computadores, e x2014; de fato & # x2014; commodes. A CSI não tem mais direito aos lucros do ABN de suas cartas de crédito e garantia do que a empresa que faz ou o encanador que instala os banheiros do ABN. "(Id. Às 18)
Em 8 de novembro de 2013, o Tribunal concedeu liminar à ABN para excluir provas de lucros indiretos. (ECF No. 344.) O Tribunal explicou: "Embora esteja claro que o BankTrade está relacionado e apóia o trabalho do ABN no setor de trade finance, especificamente através do processamento de cartas de crédito e garantias para o ABN CSI não conseguiu identificar as formas em que os lucros do ABN são atribuíveis especificamente ao BankTrade ". (11/8/13 Opinion & amp; Order at 24.) O Tribunal fundamentou que, embora a capacidade do ABN de processar operações de trade finance fosse talvez ajudada pelo uso do BankTrade, o ABN processou as transações devido a vários outros fatores também. (Id. Em 25.)
Além disso, os produtos de trade finance são "rígidos", o que significa que estão conectados a outros produtos oferecidos pelos bancos e geram receitas adicionais por meio de linhas de crédito, descobertos, empréstimos, etc. (Id. At 15.) O ABN supostamente gerou receita em vários como resultado de seu processamento de financiamento do comércio e, portanto, do BankTrade. Este Tribunal considerou que a multiplicidade de fatores interconectados tornava os lucros supostamente obtidos pelo ABN como resultado do uso do BankTrade difíceis de mensurar.
Em 17 de outubro de 2013, a Corte concedeu a moção da CST para julgamento sumário. (ECF nºs 310, 318.) O Tribunal considerou infundadas as alegações e defesas remanescentes do ABN, determinando especificamente que: (1) a TI não possuía uma licença do BankTrade; (2) A CSI não havia autorizado expressamente o ABN a usar o BankTrade de forma a sobreviver à Transação da LaSalle; e (3) a CSI não concedeu ao ABN uma licença implícita para usar o BankTrade por meio de sua conduta. (10/17/13 Opinião e Ordem em 8.)
Oito dias depois, em 25 de outubro de 2013, a CSI entrou com uma ação por uma liminar permanente. (ECF No. 313.) 9 O CSI procura obrigar o ABN a parar de usar o BankTrade e a devolver todas as cópias existentes do software. A moção da CSI para uma liminar permanente foi totalmente informada em 6 de janeiro de 2014. 10 A Corte realizou uma audiência de prova sobre a moção em 14 de março de 2014; em 7 de abril de 2014, as partes apresentaram as alegações finais.
III. CONSTATAÇÕES FACTUAIS.
Em conexão com essa moção, a Corte recebeu provas na forma de declarações, exposições e depoimentos em tempo real. O que se segue constitui as conclusões do Tribunal.
uma. BankTrade.
Na audiência de provas, a Corte ouviu depoimentos ao vivo do fundador da CSI, Gad Janay. O tribunal achou Janay conhecedora, franca e credível. Ele pareceu sério em proteger seus negócios e sincero em suas declarações a respeito do dano que CSI sofreu e sofrerá como resultado da infração do ABN, assim como o dano que uma licença compulsória terá em tentativas contínuas de licenciar o BankTrade para outras empresas. 11
A CSI é detentora dos direitos autorais do BankTrade, um sofisticado sistema de software para o processamento de finanças comerciais de back office. (Declaração de Gad Janay em Apoio à Ação dos Queixosos por uma Mandado Permanente e à Destruição ou Retorno de todas as cópias do BankTrade na Posse, Custódia [ou] ou Controle do ABN ("Janay 10/25 Decl.") & # 182; & # 182; 1, 5, 25 de outubro de 2013, ECF No. 315.) O BankTrade é usado principalmente para processar cartas de crédito e garantias, embora também tenha vários outros recursos. 12 (Id. & # 182; & # 182; 5, 6.) O negócio da CST é duplo: (1) licencia o BankTrade para os bancos; e (2) instala o software BankTrade, treina usuários e mantém o software em nome de seus usuários. (3/14 Tr. 8.)
As receitas anuais da CSI estão entre US $ 18 e US $ 20 milhões. (3/14 Tr. 65.) Tem aproximadamente 100 licenciados, incluindo o RBS (que era um cliente antes da LaSalle Transaction), 13 Citizen's Bank, ING, Wespac, Banco Nacional do Kuwait, Banco Santander, etc. (3 / 14 Tr. 9.)
O ABN possui mais de 2.621 clientes de financiamento comercial que usam seu sistema GTP. De uma forma ou de outra, esses clientes de trade finance "tocam" no BankTrade. 14 (Declaração de Dermot Canavan ("Canavan Decl.") & # 182; 13 de janeiro de 2014, ECF No. 367.) A cada semana, o ABN processa uma média de 3.089 novas transações de trade finance (cartas de crédito, garantias e coleções documentais) no GTP. (Id. & # 182; & # 182; 15-16)
c. Insourcing.
O ABN está no negócio de insourcing das necessidades de processamento de financiamento comercial de bancos de terceiros. Ele usa o BankTrade em conexão com este negócio. Os clientes que "terceirizam" o financiamento do comércio para o ABN teriam a opção de licenciar o BankTrade da CSI e processar suas próprias transações de financiamento comercial. Consequentemente, o ABN e a CSI estão ambos no negócio de fornecer a terceiros a capacidade de processar transações financeiras comerciais. A CSI fornece esses recursos por meio de licenças e serviços de seu aplicativo BankTrade, que é instalado nos servidores de um banco (ou seja, o modelo "faça você mesmo"). O ABN, por outro lado, oferece uma oferta de "serviço completo", com seu próprio sistema de computador e pessoal. (Veja 3/14 Tr. 92; veja também 3/14 Tr. 136 (ABN está "na mistura em muitos lugares; os bancos nos dizem [CST] eles estão considerando também insourcing").)
De acordo com o adendo do Contrato de Licença de 2001, a TI obteve da CSI o direito de fornecer insourcing global e irrestrito. (Declaração de Gad Janay em Apoio à Ação dos Requerentes por uma Mandado Permanente e à Destruição ou Retorno de Todas as Cópias do BankTrade na Posse, Custódia [ou] ou Controle do ABN ("Janay Decl.") & # 182; ; 3-5, 6 de janeiro de 2014, ECF Nº 359.) Como resultado, os afiliados de TI poderiam celebrar contratos com bancos de terceiros, por meio dos quais as afiliadas de TI processariam transações de financiamento comercial para bancos de terceiros usando o BankTrade, sem compartilhar qualquer receita ou fornecer qualquer benefício financeiro contínuo à CSI. Atualmente, o ABN possui contratos de terceirização com várias empresas, incluindo o KeyBank e o Allied Irish Bank.
Com o tempo, a CSI percebeu que permitir que seus clientes participassem de um insourcing ilimitado sem compartilhamento de receita era prejudicial para os negócios da CST, pois permitia que os usuários do BankTrade competissem com a CSI pelos negócios. (Id. & # 182; 8.) CSI não entraria em uma licença semelhante àquela que entrou com a TI sobre insourcing hoje. A CSI argumenta que a ABN contatou clientes CSI existentes e tentou persuadi-los a usar o BankTrade em seus próprios sistemas para terceirizar para o ABN. (3/14 Tr. 25; ver também Janay Decl. & # 182; 12.) As partes discutem se isso de fato ocorreu; que isso é indiscutível.
Não há dúvida de que as capacidades do ABN & # x2014; construído em BankTrade & # x2014; e a base de clientes do BankTrade (bancos como o ABN que optam por realizar o processamento de financiamento do comércio interno) competir. Na audiência de prova, as partes provaram este ponto debatendo o estatuto do KeyBank, do Allied Irish Bank, do Barclays Bank, do Bank of Ayudhya, do Bank of Asia e do PT Bank Mandiri. (Janay Decl. & # 182; 10; ver também 3/14 Tr. 25, 30.) Embora os fatos não apóiem ​​a CSI ter de fato "perdido" uma dessas contas para o ABN, não está claro se o fato de que a CSI e o ABN competia entre si, desempenhando algum papel na tomada de decisões de terceiros. 15 O registro demonstra que a CSI e a ABN têm e continuarão a competir por clientes que procuram fornecer aos clientes serviços de processamento de financiamento comercial.
A Infosys, com sede na Índia, fornece serviços de tecnologia da informação. (3/14 Tr. 40-41, 99, 101.) A Infosys tanto "fabrica e vende seu próprio software de financiamento comercial que concorre diretamente com o BankTrade" (Janay Decl. & # 182; 17) e adicionalmente fornece manutenção e customização. serviços para o BankTrade. Em 2005, a ABN contratou a Infosys para manter o BankTrade e forneceu à Infosys o código-fonte do BankTrade. (Janay 10/25 Decl. & # 182; 17; 3/14 Tr. 40; Janay Decl. & # 182; 23.) Qualquer direito derivado que a Infosys teve ao código-fonte da CST evaporou quando a TI foi vendida para a BAC. Janay testemunhou com credibilidade que a CSI está preocupada que o acesso da Infosys ao código fonte dê à Infosys uma vantagem competitiva em detrimento da CSI. 16 (Janay Decl. & # 182; 23.) 17.
e. Acesso ao Código Fonte / Manutenção.
A CSI obtém cerca de um terço de sua receita de taxas associadas à manutenção do BankTrade nos computadores de seus licenciados. O uso do código-fonte do BankTrade é necessário para tal trabalho de manutenção. (3/14 Tr. 17.)
A partir de 2005, a Infosys e o ABN trabalharam juntos para usar, modificar e atualizar o BankTrade e seu código sem a contribuição da CSI. (Janay Decl. & # 182; 13; veja também 3/14 Tr. 19.)
Na maioria das vezes, a CSI evita esses tipos de acordos hoje. A CSI não permite que um licenciado rescinda uma única provisão de licença (por exemplo, manutenção) sem encerrar a licença inteira. (Janay Decl. & # 182; 13; 3/14 Tr. 40.) Enquanto CSI ainda às vezes concede acesso ao código-fonte, ele não permite a modificação interna, mas sim como um backup: geralmente coloca o código-fonte em "escrow", acessível apenas após o acionamento de certas condições. (3/14 Tr. 83.)
f. Danos de reputação.
É indiscutível que a CSI fez muitas melhorias e modificações no BankTrade desde 2007. A atual versão do BankTrade da CSI é de 15,1; O ABN executa o BankTrade versão 8.0. Essa diferença nas versões resulta em diferenças nos recursos, na funcionalidade e na qualidade. O BankTrade do ABN é executado em um mainframe IBM legado, que de acordo com Janay é "arquitetura antiga e um sistema antigo"; O BankTrade da CSI "roda em qualquer hardware no mercado hoje [,] incluindo os mais modernos Windows, Unix, Linux, AS400" etc. (3/14 Tr. 39.)
A CSI alega que, como resultado do insourcing e da capacidade do ABN de manter e modificar o BankTrade, a CSI sofreu danos à reputação. Janay testemunhou com credibilidade que "em shows como Sibos [uma conferência anual para a indústria] ..., os clientes vieram [até] [Janay e outros membros da equipe da CSI] ... e [disseram], como o BankTrade não faz serviço Nós estamos tendo problemas com o BankTrade [.] Nossa experiência na ABN é tão e assim por diante ". (3/14 Tr. 36.) De acordo com Janay, esses indivíduos tiveram impressões falsas das capacidades do BankTrade como resultado do uso pela ABN da versão desatualizada e modificada do software. Da mesma forma, Janay testemunhou com credibilidade que em determinado momento recebeu uma queixa de que o BankTrade não poderia "oferecer uma taxa de comissão mais flexível" ou a "capacidade de participar de certos documentos", mas que aqui novamente, eram problemas com o desatualizado do ABN. versão modificada do BankTrade. (3/14 Tr. 38.)
Janay também declarou que a decisão do ABN de fornecer suas próprias atualizações e manutenção prejudica a reputação da CSI porque sugere que a CSI é incapaz de manter o BankTrade para um grande cliente global. (3/14 Tr. 36, 38.) Janay testemunhou que, com base no que ele entende em relação à dinâmica competitiva, o ABN capitalizou essa noção em seus esforços de marketing para potenciais clientes de insourcing. (3/14 Tr. 36.) "Quando a [ABN] está em uma situação de vendas competitivas para insourcing [contra a CSI para licenciamento], seja para clientes existentes ou clientes em potencial, eles a estão usando como parte de seu discurso de vendas. mantendo-a. Eles são uma pequena empresa. Somos globais ". (3/14 Tr. 36.)
O Tribunal considerou o testemunho de Janay sobre o dano à reputação sofrido pela CSI credível. Janay está preocupada e frustrada com o grau de dano à reputação que a CSI tem e continuará a sofrer como resultado da conduta do ABN.
g. Esforços de licenciamento entre as partes.
Houve várias ocasiões desde que esse litígio começou, quando a ABN e a CSI tentaram negociar um novo contrato de licenciamento. Em 27 de fevereiro de 2008, Janay escreveu uma carta ao presidente do RBS, Sir Fred Goodwin, indicando que a CSI pode ser passível de um novo contrato de licenciamento com o ABN. 18 (Garces Decl., Ex. 1.) Cerca de seis semanas depois, em 16 de abril de 2008, o diretor financeiro da CST, Charles Griffis, escreveu uma carta ao consultor interno do RBS, Hollie Lussier, oferecendo licença do software do BankTrade para o ABN. $310 million, with additional rights including insourcing, source code, maintenance, and assignability as additional "items for negotiation." (Id. ¶ 4, Ex. 2.) Janay testified credibly that the purpose of this offer was to force ABN off the system rather than to open the door to negotiations. (3/14 Tr. 44.) Janay explained that CSI did not expect ABN to pay the $310 million licensing fee; the message was "okay, for $310 million, you can use the system, but other than that, get off." (3114 Tr. 44.) In sum, Janay's view was that if ABN would pay a price that was the equivalent of buying the company, ABN could have BankTrade. He did not have any expectation that this would occur.
That being said, on April 21, 2008, Janay wrote an internal email to CST's Jack Eisner, Charles Griffis, and Warren Brown about a conversation he had with Mike Lofgren from RBS. (Garces Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. 3.) In the email, Janay states that he told Lofgren: "Jack is the negotiator and his job is to bring the parties together, you should discuss the issues with him." (Id.) Janay explained: "[W]e at CSI feel we have been misled by ABN when we signed the License [A]greement, and that thank[] god we now have a chance for a do over, and we are looking to negotiat[e] a new agreement with RBS based on fair terms to both CSI and the bank." (Id.) In an April 25, 2008 email, Eisner wrote to Janay that he told Lofgren that "my job is to reason together a price that we can both have our organizations sign off on." (Id. ¶ 6, Ex. 4.)
In the end, of course, ABN and CSI were unable to reach an agreement for a new license. 19
h. Transition Off BankTrade.
The parties do not dispute that ending ABN's use of BankTrade cannot be accomplished overnight. ABN has had five-plus years (since the lawsuit was filed) to effect such a transition or plan for an orderly transition in the event it lost the lawsuit, but apparently has not done so.
It would take ABN between 18 and 32 months to transition off of BankTrade. 20 ABN's sudden termination of its use of BankTrade would likely render GTP, the larger system which uses BankTrade as a component, essentially unusable for a period of time. (See Bostonian-Spratt Decl. ¶¶ 9, 18-19.) For example, ABN's clients are provided with a software application, MaxTrad, that allows them to conduct their trade finance business — the data from MaxTrad is transmitted to and from BankTrade. (Id. ¶ 22.) BankTrade similarly is linked to a number of other GTP applications, including: Business Intelligence Repository ("BIR"), which is used to report on revenues/fees earned by ABN, including for transactions processed at least in part on BankTrade; Standing Instruction Repository ("SIR"), which provides data and instructions to BankTrade for the processor to view when transactions are processed using BankTrade; and a number of other applications as well. (Id. ¶¶ 28-38.)
BankTrade is not the only software application which can facilitate trade finance transactions CSI has a number of competitors. Indeed, ABN itself uses multiple software applications providing trade finance capabilities, including Smooth, Score, and PSI. ABN states that these systems cannot immediately replace BankTrade due to their current configurations. (Id. ¶¶ 48-49; see also Declaration of Sophie Harbour ("Harbour Decl,") ¶¶ 15, Jan. 15, 2014, ECF No. 377.) ABN's various GTP software applications are deeply integrated with BankTrade. (3/14 Tr. 195.)
IV. DISCUSSION.
uma. Enquadramento jurídico.
The Copyright Act provides that a court may grant a permanent injunction "on such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright." 17 U. S.C. § 502(a). Injunctions relating to copyright infringement are governed by principles of equity and are within the discretion of the court. See eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L. L.C.,  547 U. S. 388, 394 (2006) ("We hold that the decision whether to grant or deny injunctive relief rests within the equitable discretion of the district courts, and that such discretion must be exercised consistent with traditional principles of equity . . . .").
To determine whether injunctive relief is appropriate, the court must examine whether the party seeking the injunction has satisfied the following four requirements:
(1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.
Identidade. at 392-93 (citations omitted); see Salinger v. Colting,  607 F.3d 68, 77-78 (2d Cir. 2010) (applying the standard to a preliminary injunction in a copyright case); Warner Bros. Entm't, Inc. v. RDR Books,  575 F. Supp.2d 513, 551 (S. D.N. Y. 2008).
While "[t]he grant of injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy," Silverstein v. Penguin Putnam, Inc.,  368 F.3d 77, 84 (2d Cir. 2004) (citations omitted), "[i]n the copyright realm, it has been said that an injunction should be granted if denial would amount to a forced license to use the creative work of another." Identidade. (citations omitted); see also SimplexGrinnell LP v. Integrated Sys. & amp; Power, Inc.,  642 F. Supp.2d 167, 197 (S. D.N. Y. 2009) (Lynch, J.); National Football League v. Primetime 24 Joint Venture, No. 98 Civ. 3778, 1999 WL 760130, at *4 (S. D.N. Y. Sept. 27, 1999).
"[P]ermanent injunctions are generally granted where liability has been established and there is a threat of continuing infringement." US Home Entm't, Inc. v. Fu Shun Wang,  482 F. Supp.2d 314, 319 (E. D.N. Y. 2007); see also Marshall v. Marshall, No. 08 Civ. 1420, 2012 WL 1079550, at *29 (E. D.N. Y. Mar. 30, 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Hounddog Prods., L. L.C. v. Empire Film Grp., Inc.,  826 F. Supp.2d 619, 634 (S. D.N. Y. 2011) (granting injunctive relief because "Nile only remedy that can prevent such infringement" is an injunction and because defendant's "conduct hardly suggests that it will refrain from infringing [p]laintiffs' copyright in the future."); Granite Music Corp. v. Center St. Smoke House, Inc.,  786 F. Supp.2d 716, 730 (W. D.N. Y. 2011) (citations omitted); Realsongs, Universal Music Corp. v. 3A N. Park Av. Rest Corp.,  749 F. Supp.2d 81, 93 (E. D.N. Y. 2010) (citation omitted). "In many instances, injunctive relief may be the best or only way to preserve the exclusivity of a copyright." National Football League, 1999 WL 760130, at *4.
b. Irreparable Harm — Enquadramento jurídico.
To obtain permanent injunctive relief, the moving party must show irreparable injury. eBay, Inc.,  547 U. S. 392-93. "Harm might be irremediable, or irreparable, for many reasons, including that a loss is difficult to replace or difficult to measure, or that it is a loss that one should not be expected to suffer." Salinger, 826 F. Supp. 2d at 81.
There are many ways to demonstrate irreparable harm. "A plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law where, absent an injunction, the defendant is likely to continue infringing its copyright(s)." Hounddog Prods., L. L.C., 826 F. Supp. 2d at 632 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Granite Music Corp., 786 F. Supp. 2d at 730 ("Accordingly, the circumstances of this action support granting a permanent injunction . . . because without such injunction [d]efendants who, to date, have steadfastly refused to execute a licensing agreement, will likely continue to permit public performances of copyrighted musical compositions .. without the requisite license to do so") (citations omitted); Realsongs, Universal Music Corp., 749 F. Supp. 2d at 93 (explaining that "permanent injunctions will only be given where there is a substantial likelihood of future infringements") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); SimplexGrinnell LP, 642 F. Supp. 2d at 196-97 (citing Warner Bros. Entm't, 575 F. Supp. 2d at 553); BMG Music v. Pena, No. 05 Civ. 2310, 2007 WL 2089367, at *5 (E. D.N. Y. July 19, 2007).
There are various sorts of competitive impacts which may constitute irreparable harm. For instance, "[at is well-established that a movant's loss of current or future market share may constitute irreparable harm." Grand River Enter. Six Nations, Ltd. v. Pryor,  481 F.3d 60, 67 (2d Cir. 2007) (citations omitted); see also i4i Ltd. P'ship v. Microsoft Corp.,  598 F.3d 831, 862 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc.,  544 F.3d 1341, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Register, Inc. v. Verio, Inc.,  356 F.3d 393, 404 (2d Cir. 2004); Muze, Inc. v. Digital On-Demand, Inc.,  123 F. Supp.2d 118, 131 (S. D.N. Y. 2000) (citations omitted). A loss of goodwill or reputation similarly may constitute irreparable harm. See, e. g., Metso Minerals, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 2d at 74-75 (citations omitted); CJ Prods. LLC v. Snuggly Plushez LLC,  809 F. Supp.2d 127, 145 (E. D.N. Y. 2011).
For example, in Muze, Inc. v. Digital On-Demand, Inc., the court determined that plaintiff was irreparably injured because defendant's unauthorized use and misappropriation of plaintiffs music database enabled defendant to compete directly with plaintiffs core business. 123 F. Supp. 2d at 129-131. The court determined that "such misuse threatens imminent injury to the economic value of the goodwill and reputation associated with [plaintiffs] product," and thus, a (preliminary) injunction was warranted. Identidade. at 130.
Similarly, in CJ Products LLC v. Snuggly Plushez LLC, the court held that plaintiff suffered irreparable harm sufficient to warrant a preliminary injunction where defendant put counterfeit versions of plaintiffs' products into the market. 809 F. Supp. 2d at 145. The court determined that the products, "which look remarkably similar to plaintiffs' product line, have resulted and will likely result in confusion among customers, as well as lost sales and loss of goodwill for plaintiffs." Identidade. (citation omitted). The court held that both lost sales and the impairment of plaintiffs' reputation, "achieved through considerable time and effort," was irreparable with monetary damages. Identidade.
Direct competition may therefore constitute irreparable harm. See Abbott Labs., 544 F.3d at 1361-62 (citing cases); cf. Esbin & Alter, LLP v. Sabharwal, Globus, & Lim, LLP, 403 F. App'x 591, 592 (2d Cir. 2010) (holding that the record below was insufficient to determine plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief because "Lilt appears no evidence was submitted to the district court regarding [plaintiffs] loss of market share or clients following [defendant's] acquisition and use of the allegedly infringing software").
Difficulty in calculating damages may also demonstrate irreparable harm. Salinger, 607 F.3d at 81 ("Harm might be irremediable, or irreparable, for many reasons, including that a loss is difficult to replace or difficult to measure."); see also Register, Inc., 356 F.3d at 404 ("[I]rreparable harm may be found where damages are difficult to establish and measure."). Indeed, "to prove the loss of sales due to infringement is notoriously difficult." Salinger, 607 F.3d at 81 (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citation omitted); see, e. g., Technimed SRL v. Kidz-Med, Inc.,  763 F. Supp.2d 395, 410-11 (S. D.N. Y. 2011) (explaining that because customers were likely to mistake defendant's product for plaintiffs and because defendant's product is far less expensive than plaintiffs, the "damages are inherently difficult to quantify, because `it would be very difficult to calculate monetary damages that would successfully redress the loss of a relationship with a client that would produce an indeterminate amount of business in years to come') (quoting Ticor Title Ins. Co. v. Cohen,  173 F.3d 63, 69 (2d Cir. 1999)); CJ Prods. LLC, 809 F. Supp. 2d at 149.
c. Irreparable Harm Discussion.
CSI has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm as a result of ABN's use of BankTrade.
ABN's primary arguments against a finding of irreparable harm are two-fold: (1) that CSI has failed to present evidence of actual irreparable harm (e. g., actual lost sales in competition with ABN, actual reputational harm, or actual loss of market share); and that (2) CSI is in the business of licensing its product and being required to license (via a compulsory license) could thus not harm CSI's business. With respect to the latter argument, ABN devotes significant time to the fact that at various points during this litigation, CSI offered to license BankTrade to ABN for a price — a commercially unreasonable price, but a price nonetheless. This, according to ABN, demonstrates better than anything else could that CSI's damages are compensable by a monetary award and thus not "irreparable." ABN misapplies the facts to the case law.
As an initial matter, the record is overwhelmingly clear that CSI's efforts to provide banks with trade finance processing capabilities, and ABN's efforts to do the same, are directly competitive. Indeed, the fact that CSI and ABN are both competing for the dollars banks spend on trade finance processing is dispositive; not whether a particular client has yet in fact been taken by ABN at CSI's expense. Thus, ABN's arguments knocking off CSI's proof as to the various banks misses the point. The point is not that a specific lost customer can today be shown, but that CSI and ABN are competing in the same marketplace for the same set of clients. Based on the evidence, the Court finds that CSI and ABN do compete and that CSI is at risk of losing customers in competition with ABN. See, e. g., Abbott Labs., 544 F.3d at 1362; Cf. Esbin Alter, LLP, 403 F. App'x at 592.
Similarly, CSI has put forward credible evidence that third parties misunderstand ABN's BankTrade platform — which uses version 8.0 — with the capabilities CSI's BankTrade — version 15.1. This creates reputational harm. Janay testified that customers have approached him and said, for example: "We are having problems with BankTrade . . . . Our experience at ABN is so on and so forth." (3/14 Tr. 36.) Janay testified that potential customers "assume immediately that [ABN's] BankTrade has the same feature[s], that it's the same BankTrade [as CSI's BankTrade]." (3/14 Tr. 38.)
ABN argues that Janay's testimony is too general; that it is not based on sufficiently concrete evidence. The Court disagrees. The Court credits Janay's testimony. Moreover, the facts are plain and the danger is real: ABN uses version 8.0; ABN's use of "BankTrade" is no secret; CSI's current version is 15.1; Janay has received specific comments regarding the lack of BankTrade capabilities at ABN. Thus, reputational harm has occurred and is likely to continue absent injunctive relief. ABN lacks any intrinsic right to use an older, more limited version of BankTrade, thereby giving third parties false impressions about BankTrade. See CJ Prods. LLC, 809 F. Supp. 2d at 156 (in trademark context, explaining that losing control over one's reputation constitutes irreparable harm); Metso Minerals, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 2d at 74-75 ("[W]hen a plaintiff can show that infringement caused a loss of value in its business that is difficult to quantify — such as market share, goodwill, or reputation — then the plaintiff is more likely to have been irreparably injured.") (citations omitted); Register, Inc., 356 F.3d at 404 (affirming a district court's determination that irreparable harm existed "through loss of reputation, goodwill, and business opportunities"); Muze, Inc., 123 F. Supp. 2d at 131-32 (holding that plaintiff met its burden of proving irreparable harm in part because defendants' misuse of the product at issue "threaten[ed] imminent injury to the economic value of the goodwill and reputation associated with Muze's product").
Beyond these obvious harms, it is certain that CSI's damages are difficult nearly impossible — to quantify. Indeed, this Court has already so held in connection with its ruling on CSI's desire to proffer evidence of indirect damages. (ECF No. 344.) In that decision, this Court stated that such damages are necessarily buried within layers of interlacing factors, greatly complicating questions of causation. As a result, disaggregating profits attributable to the use of BankTrade would be extremely challenging, if it could be done at all. "The profits associated with ABN's use of BankTrade are necessarily indirect: they are based on assumptions regarding the use of BankTrade to lead to a transaction, which may lead to subsequent transactions (and subsequent profits) for ABN (and RBS)." (11/8/13 Opinion & Order at 23.) The Court explained in its November 8, 2013 decision that the evidence illustrates that "while ABN's capacity to provide trade finance services to its customers was perhaps aided by its use of BankTrade, the services provided by ABN are the result of a number of other factors as well." (Id. at 25.) See Salinger, 607 F.3d at 81 (explaining that irreparable harm may exist where damages are difficult to quantify); Register, Inc., 356 F.3d at 404 ("[I]rreparable harm may be found where damages are difficult to establish and measure") (citation omitted).
In addition, to deny injunctive relief would convey to licensees that they hold the ultimate trump card in any negotiation with CSI: if they reach an impasse, they could simply keep using the software and ask the Court to impose a license complete with fee and other business terms. This would have far-reaching and unknowable consequences for CST's ability to effectively negotiate. Its core business involves negotiation. Such a transfer of leverage would have untold impacts on the ultimate finance and business terms of CST's licenses going forward. This constitutes irreparable harm.
In support of its argument that CSI has not suffered irreparable harm, ABN relies on Computer Generated Solutions, Inc. v. Koral, No. 97 Civ. 6298, 1998 WL 1085945 (S. D.N. Y. Dec. 9, 1998). There, the court determined that plaintiff failed to prove a likelihood of irreparable harm in the context of a preliminary injunction because "the mere use of works without paying royalty fees when such works ordinarily would be available in return for payment of such fees" could be fully compensable with monetary damages. Identidade. at *1. Competition between plaintiff and defendant, reputational harm, and difficulties in quantifying damages from infringement are not discussed (as they are here). Generally, the court did not discuss whether irreparable injury would exist if the injury was more than merely owed royalty fees. The court similarly did not discuss whether irreparable harm would exist if the work — which happened to be copyrighted software — would not have been voluntarily made available by plaintiff to defendant in exchange for a royalty fee. 21 CSI has stated that it will not voluntarily grant ABN permission to continue using BankTrade — or to exercise rights under a license agreement dating back a decade that contains terms it now would not grant.
ABN also cites International Business Machines Corp. v. BGC Partners, Inc., No. 10 Civ. 128, 2010 WL 1924715 (S. D.N. Y. May 12, 2010). That case is not controlling and is unpersuasive applied to the facts before this Court. In International Business Machines Corp., the court relied on the fact that the only claim of irreparable harm made by plaintiff was that it was going to lose its ability to negotiate its licenses. Identidade. , at *1. The various facts which may have been at play there are unknown to this Court; but this Court notes that an inability to negotiate licenses can certainly be a form of irreparable harm; the shift in leverage would permeate all aspects of the business relationship, perhaps resulting in foregone revenues, concessions on terms on a less than optimal basis, and incidental discouragement of and reduced innovation. Of course, CSI has proven a variety of forms of irreparable harm, only one of which being the loss of ability to independently negotiate licenses to BankTrade.
ABN also relies on a recent Federal Circuit case, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., which held that in order to prove irreparable injury in a patent case, a party must show not only that it will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted, but additionally, the existence of "a sufficiently strong causal nexus [between] the alleged harm [and] the alleged infringement." 695 F.3d 1370, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2012). "The relevant question is not whether there is some causal relationship between the asserted injury and the infringing conduct, but to what extent the harm resulting from selling the accused product can be ascribed to the infringement." Identidade. at 1375.
In Apple, the court deemed the district court's decision insufficient in part because the court failed to find that consumers purchased the allegedly infringing product because it was equipped with the patent at issue (namely, a unified search function also used in the iPhone's "Siri. Id. at 1376. The court explained:
A laptop computer, for example, will not work (or work long enough) without a battery, cooling fan, or even the screws that may hold its frame together, and its value would be accordingly depreciated should those components be removed. That does not mean, however, that every such component is "core" to the operation of the machine, let alone that each component is the driver of consumer demand.
Identidade. Without a determination that consumers purchased the allegedly infringing product because of the allegedly infringing patent, the court determined that a finding of irreparable harm was unwarranted.
In contrast to the situation in Apple, and indeed, in total contradiction to ABN's prior arguments regarding the utility of BankTrade, ABN itself now argues that BankTrade is a "core" feature to GTP. According to ABN, taking BankTrade out of GTP would be like removing the system's heart.
However, the situation before this Court is not similar to that in Apple. It is not concerned with the sale of a consumer good; there are many more forms of irreparable harm at play here than discussed in Apple. Here, there is competition between the parties which this Court has found is causally related to lost customers; there is reputational harm directly and causally related to ABN's use of an older, outdated version of BankTrade; there are difficulties measuring damages causally related to the use of BankTrade; etc. This case is not analogous to Apple.
d. Balance of Hardships.
The balance of hardships here tips decidedly in favor of CSI.
A victory for ABN on this motion would have the sweeping result of imposing a perpetual, compulsory license on CSI. At oral argument, this Court inquired if ABN was seeking a perpetual license; it conceded it was. CSI's business is licensing BankTrade. It plainly seeks to have BankTrade be as useful and as important to its clients as possible. A loss here — thereby allowing ABN to use BankTrade in perpetuity for a fee imposed by the Court, would have the potential to destroy CST's business. Why would ABN be entitled to such relief and not others? It could turn all of CST's licenses into potential perpetual licenses (at least, so would disgruntled licensees argue) — the more reliance a licensee is on BankTrade, the lower would be CST's leverage. This makes no sense. Diminishing CST's negotiating leverage could diminish its incentives to innovate; reduced innovation could lessen CST's competitive position. These impacts go to the core of CST's business. See, e. g., Buttnugget Publ'g v. Radio Lake Placid, Inc.,  807 F. Supp.2d 100, 109 (N. D.N. Y. 2011) (holding that the balance of hardships tipped "decidedly in plaintiffs' favor" because in the copyright realm, "`an injunction should be granted if denial would amount to a forced license to use the creative work of another') (citing Silverstein, 368 F.3d at 84).
In contrast, granting an injunction simply prevents ABN from doing that which it has no right to do — using a software program it sold to BAC as part of its $21 billion deal. This bears repeating in the context of weighing hardship — whose ox is gored: ABN received $21 billion when it sold assets to BAC, including IT and its license to BankTrade. No one but ABN decided on the terms of that sale; perhaps it could have taken less and assigned the BankTrade license pre-closing. It did not. ABN's hardship is, then, self-imposed if unfortunate and decidedly inconvenient. ABN may not continue benefiting from its blatant and ongoing infringement simply because stopping that infringement will be disruptive to its business. SimplexGrinnell LP, 642 F. Supp. 2d at 197 (explaining that "loss of ability to engage in unauthorized conduct and the concomitant business opportunities that such unauthorized activities may provide" is not a legally cognizable hardship in the context of an injunction) (citing Warner Bros. Entm't, 575 F. Supp. 2d at 553); see also WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc.,  765 F. Supp.2d 594, 620-21 (S. D.N. Y. 2011) (citations omitted); Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset,  680 F. Supp.2d 1045, 1060 (D. Minn. 2010) ("There is no cognizable harm to [d]efendant from being enjoined from doing something that is against the law and for which she has already been found liable."); Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.,  543 F.3d 683, 704 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("One who elects to build a business on a product found to infringe cannot be heard to complain if an injunction against continuing infringement destroys the business so elected.") (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citation omitted).
Moreover, while BankTrade is an integral part of ABN's overall GTP trade finance platform, it is replaceable. ABN itself utilizes other competing products. That ABN has done nothing since this litigation was commenced to protect its business is a lost calculated bet. The Court notes that ABN acknowledged at the evidentiary hearing that it could itself outsource most of its trade finance functions. Finally, trade finance is a small part of ABN's overall business.
The balance of hardships tips decidedly in CSI's favor. That is not to say and acknowledge that ABN will face hardship, but it is rather to bring an end to a drawn out process that ABN could have and should have seen coming long ago.
e. Public Interest.
The public interest here clearly favors granting injunctive relief. In the absence of an injunction, this Court would be interfering with important negotiation rights, altering the parties' bargaining leverage, inserting itself as an arbitrator of a licensing fee and what are plainly complex business terms in an industry about which it knows nothing. It would, in short, be placing itself in the role of CSI's executives. These results would impact the competitive process in a manner not in the public interest. The public interest favors arms-length bargaining between parties. 22.
Indeed, if this Court were to find that a license for an important piece of software may not be revoked — or, put otherwise, must be renewed — on terms the licensee considers reasonable, the Court would be flooded with requests to assume licensing responsibilities it is ill-equipped to assume. This undue burden is not in the public interest in light of its already busy dockets. To be sure, there are instances in which courts impose licensing terms — when judicial fact-finding has determined a particular and unusual need. See, e. g., Buffalo Broadcasting Co. v. American Soc. of Composers, Authors & Publishers,  744 F.2d 917, 922-24 (2d Cir. 1984) (explaining the history of the 1941 antitrust suit brought by the United States against ASCAP and BMI, which was settled by entry of consent decrees). Courts should not wade into such deep waters casually.
Moreover, this is not a situation in which ABN would effectively be put out of business as a result of the injunction. Indeed, RBS's (ABN's parent) publicly-filed documents illustrate that from 2008 through 2013, trade finance made up only 1.3% of its total income — and that figure includes all trade finance income, rather than just that derived at least in part from BankTrade. On the other hand, the denial of injunctive relief has the real and likely potential of destroying CSI's business.
V. SCOPE OF INJUNCTION.
The Court has considered a variety of different options regarding the proper scope of injunctive relief in this case. Namely, the Court considered (and rejected) imposing an injunction on ABN's insourcing activities but otherwise denying CSI's requested relief. To impose such a limited injunction would not sufficiently remediate the irreparable harm suffered by CSI. Indeed, while ABN may be precluded from competing with CSI for clients if it were to be enjoined from insourcing, the damage to CSI's reputation and goodwill would go unabated. Moreover, CSI would still have lost the opportunity to control its own copyrighted software — an unacceptable outcome.
Thus, the Court hereby finds that for all of the reasons discussed herein, ABN must stop using BankTrade within one year. To ensure that this transition occurs, ABN shall not use BankTrade in connection with processing any new trade finance transactions received 60 days or later from the date of this Order.
VI. POTENTIAL FOR A STAY OF THIS INJUNCTION.
The Court anticipates that ABN will move for a stay of this Order. The Court has factored that likelihood into its determination of a reasonable transition period. For instance, if the Court grants a motion to stay this Order pending appeal, it would effectively result in additional transition time for ABN. The Court would only grant a stay on condition that the parties both agree to move with all available speed to perfect and argue any appeals (e. g., no delays or extensions of deadlines).
VII. CONCLUSÃO.
For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS CSI's motion for a permanent injunction and DENIES ABN's motion for reconsideration. ABN shall transition off of BankTrade within one year from the date of this Order. ABN shall not use BankTrade in connection with processing any new trade finance transactions received 60 days or later from the date of this Order.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the open motions at ECF Nos. 313 and 418.

Business Directory of New Jersey. Complex Systems Inc. - BankTrade .
Complex Systems Inc. - BankTrade.
30 Montgomery St. , Jersey City , NJ 07302.
Industry: Information Technology and Services.
Description: For over 35 years, Complex Systems, Inc. has focused on developing performance-enhancing Trade Finance Solutions that improve profitability and encourage new business development while streamlining.
Specialties: Trade Finance Solutions, Document Preparation, Supply Chain Finance & Management, Implementation Services.
Company size: 51-200 employees.
Complex Technologies.
1581 State Route 27 , Edison , NJ 08817.
Categories: Computers & Equipment Repair & Maintenance.
Phone: (732) 709-5180.
Complexion BY DR Watts.
1051 W Sherman Ave, Ste 2A , Vineland , NJ 08360.
Categories: Physicians & Surgeons.
Phone: (856) 696-4243.
Complex Technologies Corp.
518 Old Post Rd , Edison , NJ 08817.
Industry: Computer Related Consulting Srvcs.
Member: Luz Moreno (Vice-President, inactive)
COMPLEXFRIENDS, LLC.
Registration: Oct 14, 2008.
State ID: 0400254007.
Business type: LLC.
COMPLEXION LLC.
Mount Laurel , NJ.
Registration: Nov 18, 1998.
State ID: 0600058799.
Business type: LLC.
COMPLEX SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED.
Englewood Cliffs , NJ.
Registration: Dec 22, 1989.
State ID: 0100437119.
Business type: DP.
COMPLEX TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONALS LLC.
Jersey City , NJ.
Registration: Nov 27, 2012.
State ID: 0400531831.
Business type: LLC.
COMPLEX TRADERS, INC.
Registration: Sep 28, 1994.
State ID: 0100601556.
Business type: DP.
COMPLEXCARE SOLUTIONS, INC.
Registration: Aug 18, 2015.
State ID: 0450011448.
Tipo de negócio: FR.
COMPLEXED ALUMINUM, INC.
Registration: Apr 1, 1971.
State ID: 3146522500.
Business type: DP.
COMPLEX TECHNICAL SERVICES (USA), INC.
Registration: Jan 31, 1983.
State ID: 0100187156.
Business type: DP.
COMPLEX TECH EXPRESS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY.
Registration: Feb 27, 2013.
State ID: 0400553329.
Business type: LLC.
COMPLEX SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED.
Registration: Nov 14, 1978.
State ID: 0100075087.
Business type: DP.
COMPLEXFRIENDS (trademark)
Pompton Junction, NJ.
Registration: Dec 30, 2008.
State ID: 77641125.
Reg. number: 3944865.
Status: 700 - REGISTERED.
Status date: Apr 12, 2011.
Employee: Tricia L Sonneborn.
Goods & Services: Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark., The mark consists of the stylized words "COMPLEXFRIENDS". To the left of the text is an image of a sun surrounding a pair of buildings and hugging .
Owner: Complexfriends, Llc, 2111 Ramapo Court , Riverdale , NJ 07457.
Complex Tech Express.
Indústria: Estabelecimentos não classificáveis.
Phone: (862) 233-6078.
Addresses: 35 Park Ave , East Orange , NJ 07017.
235 Park Ave , East Orange , NJ 07017.
Categories: Cell Phone Equipment & Supplies.
Complex Technologies.
20 Sturgis Rd , Edison , NJ 08817.
Industry: Commercial Physical Research.
Phone: (732) 662-7751.
Categories: Computers & Equipment Repair & Maintenance.
COMPLEXION CONFIDENCE (trademark)
Registration: Oct 24, 1995.
State ID: 75013581.
Status: 604 - Abandoned - after inter-partes decision.
Status date: Aug 29, 1997.
Illustration: Typeset: Word(s)/letter(s)/number(s)
Attorney: Susan L. Robertson.
KIRSCHSTEIN, OTTINGER, ISRAEL &
551 Fifth Avenue , New York , NY 10176.
Employee: Florentina Blandu.
Goods & Services: Cosmetics, namely foundation in powder and liquid form, skin cream, skin lotion and skin moisturizer.
Owner: Flori Roberts, Inc, 1950 Swarthmore Avenue , Lakewood , NJ 08701.
COMPLEX TECHNOLOGIES (trademark)
Registration: Mar 16, 2009.
State ID: 77691836.
Status: 602 - Abandoned-failure to respond or late response.
Status date: Mar 10, 2011.
Ilustração: Desenho ou desenho que também inclui palavra (s) / letra (s) / número (s)
Employee: Heather Thompson.
Goods & Services: The color(s) gold is/are claimed as a feature of the mark., "technologies", The mark consists of the wording complex technologies in stylized upper-case letters in gold with little gold dots under.
Owner: Tawiah, Eugene, 518-7 Old Post Road #173 , Edison , NJ 08817.

Complex systems inc banktrade

BT Systems, LLC delivers performance-enhancing trade finance solutions that improve profitability and encourage new business development while streamlining bank-wide trade process flows. Since 1978, BT Systems has leveraged its unparalleled industry knowledge to deliver best-of-class trade finance software solutions to an international client base.
Our disciplined practices are defined by a comprehensive, forward-thinking approach to systems implementation, management and support. We focus on developing flexible solutions that protect our clients' investment against changes in technology. When combined, these components enhance our clients' business prospects and allow banks to differentiate their services while supplying an unparalleled product suite capable of supporting the most demanding business environments.
Produtos em exposição.
Our flagship BankTrade solution is proven for Global, Regional and Local Banks bringing the strength of Centralized Global Processing while encompassing local and regional requirements for specific regional functionality and delivery.
Our ClientTrade Corporate Solution enables the Bank’s Corporate Customers to manage completely their Trade Finance Portfolio on-line while further streamlining the Back Office Processing with embedded integration to BankTrade. OpenTrade, our Supply Chain collaboration engine, provides the possibility to link buyers and sellers on the same platform. A dedicated Bank view of the Open Account flows is provided along with TSU and BPO Workbenches.

Complex Systems, Inc. v. ABN AMRO Bank N. V., No. 1:2008cv07497 - Document 344 (S. D.N. Y. 2013)
COMPLEX SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff, 08 Civ. 7497 (KBF) - v - OPINION & ORDER ABN AMBRO BANK N, V., Defendant. ------------------------------------------------------------- X KATHERINE B. FORREST, District Judge: On October 25,2013, the Court granted summary judgment on the issue of liability in favor of plaintiff Complex System, Inc. ("CSI") as against defendant ABN AMRO Bank N. V. ("ABN") in this copyright infringement action. 1 Currently pending before this Court is a motion in limine filed by ABN that, among other things, seeks to preclude evidence of indirect profits.2 As the Court's October 25, 2013 Opinion & Order explains in detail, this is the second grant of summary judgment in CSI's favor. (See 10/25/13 Order.) Prior to the October 25,2013 decision, the Court granted summary judgment to CSI on ABN's primary defense: that ABN's former subsidiary and CSI's licensee (IT) had assigned its license to ABN prior to ABN's sale of ABN AMRO IT ("IT") to LaSalle Bank on April 22, 2007. (See 6/21113 Order.) 2 ABN's motion in limine also raises the following issues not currently before the Court: (1) limiting CSI's actual damages to the fair market value of a renewed BankTrade license; and (2) recovery of direct profits by CSI under Section 504(b) of the Copyright Act. (See Def.'s Mem., dated Nov. 1,2011, ECF No. 328.) These unrelated arguments concern an initial filing of ABN's motion in limine on May 17, 2013. (See ECF No. 218.) Due to the ongoing proceedings relating to narrowing and disposing of liability issues, the Court terminated all pending motions in this action, with leave to renew such motions if and when they became relevant. (See 10/25/13 Order.) Following the Court's Opinion & Order granting summary judgment, ABN raised the issue of indirect profits (see ECF No. 321), and the Court directed the parties to re-file their papers as to that issue. (See ECF No. 325.) 1 The underlying infringement action relates to a copyrighted software application, BankTrade 8.0 ("BankTrade"), used to facilitate certain banking transactions. BankTrade is utilized by ABN in its letter of credit and guarantee business. (See Def.'s Mem. at 6.) A former ABN subsidiary, IT, licensed the BankTrade software from CSI. (See 10/25/13 Order at 5-15.) On April 22, 2007, an ABN subsidiary, IT, was sold to Bank of America (the "LaSalle transaction"). (See id. at 16-18.) Following that sale, ABN continued to use the software without an assignment and without a license. (See 6/21113 Order; 10/25/13 Order; Pl.'s Mem. at 3, dated Nov. 1, 2013, ECF No. 333.) ABN has continued to use BankTrade to the present. (Jarosz Decl., Ex. 1 at 9.) Having resolved liability, two issues remain to be tried: the quantum of damages and willfulness. (See 10/25113 Order at 44-45.) ABN now seeks to preclude CSI from introducing evidence of indirect profits. (See Def.'s Mot., dated Nov. 1, 2013, ECF No. 327.) For the reasons set forth below, ABN's motion in limine is GRANTED. Based on the record currently before this Court, evidence of indirect damages shall be precluded at trial; plaintiffs have failed to establish a sufficient causal nexus between the infringement and ABN's revenues. 2 LEGAL BACKGROUND I. Motions in Limine "The purpose of an in limine motion is to aid the trial process by enabling the Court to rule in advance of trial on the relevance of certain forecasted evidence, as to issues that are definitely set for trial, without lengthy argument at, or interruption of, the trial." Palmieri v. Defaria, 88 F.3d 136, 141 (2d Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); accord Highland Capital Mgmt., L. P., v. Schneider, 551 F. Supp. 2d 173, 176 (S. D.N. Y. 2008). Rule 104 of the Federal Rules of Evidence requires that a court make a preliminary determination of the admissibility of all evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 104. "The trial court should exclude evidence on a motion in limine only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds." U. S. v. Ozsusamlar, 428 F. Supp. 2d 161, 164-65 (S. D.N. Y. 2006) (citations omitted). A motion in limine is a proper conduit to determine the admissibility of evidence regarding whether certain types of damages will go to a jury. See International Bus. Machs. Corp. v. BGC Partners, Inc., No. 10 Civ. 128, 2013 WL 1775437, at *3 n.5 (citing In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Prods. Liab. Litig., 517 F. Supp. 2d 662, 667 (S. D.N. Y. 2007»; see also, e. g., Faulkner v. National Geographic Soc'y, 576 F. Supp. 2d 609,612-13 (S. D.N. Y. 2008). II. Damages Pursuant to the Copyright Act Section 504 of the Copyright Act of 1976 ("the Copyright Act") provides that an infringer of a copyright is liable for actual damages and any additional profits of 3 the infringer.3 See 17 U. S.C. A. § 504(a). Section 504(b) specifically provides for "Actual Damages and Profits:" The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement, and any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing the infringer's profits, the copyright owner is required to present proof only of the infringer's gross revenue, and the infringer is required to prove his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work. 17 U. S.C. A. § 504(b). The term "gross revenue" must be construed as "gross revenue reasonably related to the infringement, not unrelated revenues." On Davis v. The Gap, Inc., 246 F.3d 152, 160 (2d Cir. 2001). Gross revenue should not be construed so broadly as to include revenue from lines of business unrelated to the act of infringement. Identidade. (analogizing to a publisher and explaining that "if a publisher published an anthology of poetry which contained a poem cov81'ed by the plaintiffs copyright," it would not be proper to use for the determination of damages "gross revenue resulting from its publication of hundreds of titles, including trade books, textbooks, cookbooks, etc." instead, "the owner's burden would require evidence of the revenues realized from the sale of the anthology containing the infringing poem"). Depending on the degree of attenuation, an infringer's profits may be "direct" or "indirect." See, e. g., Mackie v. Rieser, 296 F.3d 909, 914 (9th Cir. 2002); Frank 3 Rule 504 also provides for the possibility of statutory damages, which are not here at issue. See 17 U. S.C. A. § 504(c). 4 Music Corp. v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 772 F.2d 505, 517 (9th Cir. 1985). Both types are legally cognizable if the copyright owner can provide sufficient proof of a causal nexus between the infringement and the profit as to which the copyright owner is seeking disgorgement. Polar Bear Prods., Inc. v. Timex Corp., 384 F.3d 700, 711 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that Section 504(b) "creates a two-step framework for recovery of indirect profits; (1) the copyright claimant must first show a causal nexus between the infringement and the gross revenue; and (2) once the causal nexus is shown, the infringer bears the burden of apportioning the profits that were not the result of infringement"); Andreas v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 336 F.3d 789, 796 (8th Cir. 2003); Mager v. Brand New Sch., No. 03 Civ. 8552, 2004 WL 2413978, at *3-4 (S. D.N. Y. 2004) (citations omitted). Damages only remotely or speculatively attributable to the infringement should be precluded. See Business Trends Analysts, Inc. v. Freedonia Grp., Inc., 887 F.3d 399, 404 (2d Cir. 1989); Mackie, 296 F. 3d at 914-15; International Bus. Machs. Corp., 2013 \VL 1775437, at *3-4 (citations omitted); DaimlerChrysler Servs. v. Summit Nat'l, No. 02 Civ. 71871, 2006 WL 208787, at *3-4 (E. D. Mich. 2006) (citations omitted). The requirement of a "causal" nexus - versus some non-causal "connection" ­ is rooted in the text of the statue itself: "The copyright owner is entitled to recover . . . any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement . & quot; 17 D. S.C. A. § 504(b) (emphasis added); see also Polar Bear Prods. Inc., 384 F.3d at 713 (stating that the "causal nexus between the infringement and the profits sought" is 5 a "run-of-the-mill" requirement). Further, in On Davis v. The Gap, Inc., the Second Circuit required that sought-after revenues have a "reasonable relationship to the act of alleged infringement." 246 F.3d at 160; see also Granger v. Gill Abstract Corp., 566 F. Supp. 2d 323 (S. D.N. Y. 2008); Mager, 2004 WL 2413978, at *4. "Such an approach dovetails with common sense - there must first be a demonstration that the infringing act had an effect on profits before the parties can wrangle about apportionment." Mackie, 296 F.3d at 915 (emphasis added). Further, '''[b]ecause of the at-best highly speculative nature of all indirect profits claims' . the decision to 'send[] such claims to a jury should be extremely rare.'" International Bus. Machs. Corp., 2013 WL 1775437, at *3 (alteration in original) (citing 6 William F. Patry, Patry on Copyright § 22:131 (2010». A copyright owner bears the initial burden of demonstrating a causal nexus between the infringement and the appropriate gross revenues. See Mager, 2004 WL 2413978, at *4; Lowry's Reports, Inc. v. Legg Mason, Inc., 271 F. Supp. 2d 737, 751 (D. Md. 2003) (citations omitted). Once a copyright owner has demonstrated a sufficient causal nexus between the infringement and the appropriate gross revenues, the burden shifts to the infringer "to prove its deductible expenses and elements of profits from those revenues attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work." On Davis, 246 F.3d at 160. Several cases illustrate the burdens borne by the copyright owner in this context. For example, in Mackie v. Reiser, the infringer used a copyrighted artwork in a brochure aimed at promoting subscriptions to the Seattle Symphony Orchestra. 6 296 F.3d at 912. Plaint iff sought indirect profits comprised of profits the Symphony generated the season plaintiffs artwork was used, as well as profits for future seasons, "arguing that many patrons who subscribed to the [season at issue] because of the infringing collage later renewed their subscriptions." Identidade. at 912-13. The district court granted defendant's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of indirect damages, holding that plaintiffs evidence regarding indirect profits was, as a matter oflaw, too speculative to support disgorgement. Identidade. at 913-14. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that it could "surmise virtually endless permutations to account for an individual's decision to subscribe to the [series at issue], reasons that have nothing to do with the artwork in question." Identidade. at 916. In International Business Machines Corp. v. BGC Partners, Inc. ("BGC Partners"), IBM claimed that BGC had infringed its copyrighted software application, Informix. 2013 WL 1775437, at *1-2. BGC, an intermediary between financial institutions, "uses software, including Informix, for its [ ] back-office functions, such as administratively processing trades after their execution and generating various reports and invoices." Identidade. at *3. IBM sought to recover all of BGC's profits as indirect profits based on "BGC's representation that Informix was integrally important to the operations of BGC and its ability to service its customers." Identidade. at *3-4 (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted). The court found that IBM's indirect profits argument was "overly speculative," reasoning that while BGC acknowledged that an "immediate disruption and cessation" of Informix would have a "devastating effect," BGC 7 "consistently maintained that migration to another software system . would have little to no effect." Identidade. at *3 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court found that IBM's claim went beyond that which was reasonably derived from the infringement itself; IBM failed to proffer sufficient evidence of a causal link between the infringement and revenues. Identidade. at *4 (emphasis added). The court explained that "BGC did not market or sell the Informix software to its customers and there is no evidence that its customers cared what software system it used." Identidade. (stating that "[w]hile BGC may have profited from using Informix indirectly in that it enabled BGC to operate more efficiently," this basis for recovery was nonetheless too speculative) (citations omitted). In BGC Partners, the court also noted the similarities between that case and a prior Eastern Distl'ict of Michigan case, DaimlerChrysler Services. v. Summit National. 2006 \VL 208787, at *2-3. In DaimlerChrysler, the copyright owner also sought disgorgement of all of the infringer's profits based on statements that the back-office software at issue was "an essential component of a larger profit generating process." Identidade. at * 2-3. DaimlerChrylser had admitted that the software was critical to its business and that without it (or an acceptable replacement), it would have shut down. Identidade. at *1. The Eastern District of Michigan reiterated the proposition that befOl'e evidence of indirect profits are allowed in, a court must conduct a threshold inquiry into whether there is a legally sufficient causal link between the infringement and indirect profits. Identidade. at *3 (citing Lowry's Reports, Inc., 217 F. Supp. 2d at 3). The 8 court explained that where profits can be traced to a complex income stream - in which the infringing work may fit courts have required the copyright owner to "introduce detailed evidence linking gross revenues to the infringement." Identidade. at *4 (quotation marks and citation omitted). As the court explained: [DaimlerChrysler argues] . that although it could not likely have carried on business without [the infringing work] (or some suitable substitute), it does not follow that every cent of profit [DaimlerChrysler] generated was attributable to [the infringing work]. Its analogy is helpful in this respect: [DaimlerChrysler] could not operate without its toilets either, but that does not mean that all of its profits are attributable to commodes. Identidade. at *3. In Lowry's Reports, Inc. v. Legg Mason. Inc., the owner of a copyrighted stock market newsletter sought damages for defendant broker's employees' use of those newsletters. 271 F. Supp. 2d at 751. The court stated that even if the newsletters played an "important" or "significant" role in the employees' decision-making, any correlation between the reliance and defendant's profits was speculative. Identidade. at 752. The court explained: "The complex, variable, independent thought processes of hundreds of individual brokers intervene between the copying and any subsequent gain." Identidade. 4 In addition to On Davis v. The Gap, Inc. (see supra), other courts in this district have denied indirect damages on the basis that the copyright holder failed to prove causation and instead had only speculative claims. See Mager, 2004 WL 2413978; Granger v. Gill Abstract Corp., 566 F. Supp. 2d 323 (S. D.N. Y. 2008). In Burns v. Imagine Films Enter., Inc., the court allowed discovery on the issue of indirect damages where an amusement park attraction was based directly on an infringing work and would not exist "but for" infringement of the copyright owner's screenplays. 164 F. R.D. 589, 592 (W, D.N. Y. 1996). 4 9 In some of these cases (e. g., BGC Partners and DaimlerChrysler), the copyright owner - unlike CSI here, as discussed below - sought disgorgement of all profits of the infringer. That, however, was not the only basis on which the courts rejected the indirect profits claim. A key issue was whether the copyright holders showed a causal tie between the profits and infringement. See International Bus. Machs. Corp., 2013 WL 1775437, at *4; DaimlerChrysler Servs., 2006 WL 208787, at *4. The missing link was that the profits the copyright owner sought to disgorge were caused or "attributable" to the infringement. In these cases, while a connection between use of the infringer's product and the revenues obtained was shown, mere connection or usage alone was insufficient - each case confirmed the general underlying proposition that a copyright owner must meet the statutory requirement of showing attribution. FACTUAL BACKGROUND It is undisputed that ABN has used and continues to use BankTrade in connection with its trade finance business. In support of its claim for indirect profits, CSI has submitted three reports by John C. Jarosz5 and three reports by Donald R. Smith. 6 Taken together, these reports attempt to explain the causal 5 The Court notes that ABN filed a motion in limine to preclude certain testimony by Jarosz on May 24,2013. (See ECF No. 231.) Resolution of that motion (which has not yet been formally renewed) is not necessary to the result herein. 6 These documents are not available on the public docket because they are filed under seal. 10 nexus between BankTrade and certain revenue streams from which CSI seeks disgorgement of ABN profits. 7 BankTrade "is a component-based solution designed to provide end-to-end automation of the full range of trade finance processing, and to streamline trade processing and other trade finance activities." (Jarosz Decl., Ex. 1 at 7.) BankTrade is one of four trade processing systems used by ABN to process letters of credit and guarantees; BankTrade is not used to process foreign exchange spreads, treasuring funding, loans, lines of credit, or overdrafts. (Def.'s Mem. at 5, 18.) Jarosz states that his work has focused on a determination "of the revenues and profits that have been attributable to the defendant's infringement of the BankTrade copyright." (Jarosz Decl.
4.) He examined the period from January 2008 through June 2011, which was the period for which he had quarterly data available. (Id.
r 5.) Jarosz's findings indicate the following: The revenue that can be attributed to the use of BankTrade is approximately 0.6 percent (i. e. less than one percent) of defendant's total revenue for this period. This is before apportionment of the revenue to account for resources other than BankTrade that are used in processing the transactions through BankTrade. After apportionment, the revenue (not profit) number is approximately 0.2 percent of defendant's revenues for that period. (ld.
r 6.) Based on Jarosz's work, and the revisions that he made following the submission of ABN's reports, various amounts are attributable to the infringement 7 ABN has submitted declarations from Dermot Canavan and Richard W. George. Also discussed in the parties' papers is the expert report of Christine M. Hammer. These reports criticize the causal nexus CSI asserts generally and as to particular revenue streams. They also set forth ABN's view on appropriate deductions. 11 in the following areas: (1) "core trade finance," which is defined by Jarosz as "the facilitation of the reaching of a trade agreement between two parties" (e. g., letters of credit and guarantees); (2) spreads on foreign exchange transactions; (3) treasury funding; (4) interest margin or fees on loans; (5) lines of credit; (6) overdrafts; and (7) insourcing. (Id., Ex. 1 at 1, 10.) ABN disputes CSI's claim for indirect profits, calling it overly-broad and speculative. ABN explains CSI's position as follows: "(1) without BankTrade, ABN could not process letters of credit, (2) without letters of credit, CSI would not conduct other types of trade finance transactions, and (3) therefore, without BankTrade, ABN would not conduct other types of trade finance transactions." (Def.'s Mem. at 19.) ABN argues that this approach to indirect profits is impermissible. (Id.) ABN also argues that the operative issue is "not whether ABN's letters of credit business has driven sales in other trade finance products," but rather, "whether ABN's use of BankTrade has driven or caused - sales in those non-BankTrade product lines." (Id. at 19-20 (emphasis in original).) ABN's position reflects a correct interpretation of Section 504(b) and existing case law. 1. Jarosz Report Jarosz is not himself an expert in trade finance. He is a trained economist who, among other things, has experience in measuring damages in intellectual property cases. (See Jarosz Decl., Ex. 1 at 2.) The necessary premise of Jarosz's entire report is that a causal nexus in fact exists between BankTrade and the relatively narrow set of revenue streams he then examines. Nothing in Jarosz's 12 background suggests any practical experience or study of BankTrade's actual role in ABN/RBS's customer relationships, actual sales practices, or actual revenue generation. Accordingly, before Jarosz has a sufficient foundation on which he can rest the revenues he finds touch BankTrade in some way, a causal link between BankTrade and ABN's revenues must be established: profits must be attributable to BankTrade, not just touch the application in some way. Jarosz cannot himself opine on causation he lacks the knowledge or expertise in this area. To fill in this gap, Jarosz relies on a May 29, 2007 press release issued by ABN, a trade analyst's report, and newspaper articles. (Jarosz Decl., Ex. 1 at 5-7.) As set forth below, and as laid out in the Discussion section of this Opinion & Order, none create the required causal link. The May 2007 press release was issued in connection with RBS's acquisition of ABN; RBS states that it expects to retain the technology platform supporting ABN's cash management and trade finance business: ABN AMRO is one of a relatively small number of banks with a strong capability in international cash management, payments[,] and trade finance. These are 'sticky' products, often the foundation of long-term relationships which will provide opportunities . to sell higher value products . [and] to enhance its customE.
r relationships by offering [ABN's] stronger products and capabilities in cash management and trade finance. (Jarosz Decl., Ex. 1 at 5.)8 A research analyst contends that ABN's trade finance platform is "one of the industry's best." (ld. at 6.) One of the news stories on which 8 While not discussed in Jarosz's report, CSI also makes much of a May 2001 "Project Proposal" (see Kaplan Decl., Ex. 1), which proposes using BankTrade in 13 Jarosz relies states: "One of the jewels in the ABN crown for RBS is the . business of cash management and trade finance business. ABN is one of a handful of banks to offer such a system globally . and RBS executives arE.
excited by the prospect of keeping more of their own clients' cash management business and of using the service to sell its own range of treasury products around the globe." (Def.'s Mem. at 6.) None of these documents (even assuming admissibility for present purposes) demonstrates the required causal nexus. Nevertheless, Jarosz proceeds to assume causation and examines the appropriate revenue streams to include. As a logical matter, inclusion of each separate revenue stream requires an independent determination of casual nexusthat has also not been demonstrated. In determining which revenue streams enjoyed indirect profits from ABN's use of BankTrade, Jarosz examined "core trade finance activities" that use BankTrade namely, letters of credit, guarantees, and collections. (Id. at 21.) Additionally, Jarosz examined "revenues from other activities not directly processed on [BankTrade], but resulting from transactions processed on [BankTrade]." (ld. at 21 (emphasis added).)9 Specifically, Jarosz ABN's back-office. (See Pl.'s Mem. at 6-8.) The Project Proposal describes BankTrade as "a critical component" of, among other things, increasing trade revenues. (See Kaplan Decl., Ex. 1 at 2.) While CSI relies on this document to support its assertion that BankTrade is, in fact, critical to ABN's success, the document is nothing more than internal marketing - ABN wanted to obtain BankTrade; this document is intended to effectuate that outcome. It says nothing about whether ABN profits post-acquisition - that is, April of 2007 forward were actually caused by BankTrade. (See infra.) 9 Jarosz states: "For example, an importer that used a letter of credit to facilitate the purchase of goods may need to convert euros in its bank account to yen in order to pay for the goods upon receipt. While the foreign exchange transaction is 14 looked at spreads on foreign exchange, treasury funding, interest on loans, and lines of credit. (rd. at 27-39.) Moreover, while acknowledging that little information was available on the revenue earned from overdrafts and insourcing, Jarosz includes these sources of revenue in his analysis for the same reason. (rd. at 39-40.) To explain why he looked beyond those trade finance transactions actually processed on BankTrade, Jarosz relies on the interconnectedness between "core trade finance" and the revenue generation events that allegedly stem from those initial transactions. (rd. at 10.) For example, Jarosz explains that after a trade transaction has been processed, "buyers and sellers often need financing to facilitate the trade transaction," so "[b] anks generate additional income through use of more traditional financing methods with trade finance customers" (e. g., lines of credit, overdrafts, loans, etc.). (rd. at 12-13.) As a further step down the line, Jarosz cites to the press release language quoted above for the assertion that trade finance products are "sticky" and well-suited for cross-selling, which means that they often lay the foundation for longer-term banking relationships. (Id. at 19 (citation omitted).)IO Jarosz also states that the "acquisition of ABN expanded RBS's executed by GBM rather than on BankTrade, the revenues GBM captures are the direct result of the transaction processed on the System." (Jarosz DecL, Ex. 1 at 21.) Jarosz cites to the following RBS statement in support of this assertion: "And, often overlooked in RBS, our wealth business Coutts, and what we call our GTS business, our money, our trade finance, our cash management which is a global business, these are terrific examples, not only of businesses which are strong in their own right, but that really are glue for the Group; that we share synergies, that we share customers, that provide deposits for the rest of the Group in order to make loans to our customers, and that provide a return on equity that's attractive and high and that goes with our other activities." (Jarosz Decl., Ex. 1 at 10 (internal 10 15 customer base, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region where RBS did not have a strong corporate presence." (Id. at 19.) It is plain, therefore, that Jarosz assumes a causal nexus (well beyond some general connection) between core trade finance activities and additional revenue streams. In his rebuttal report dated April 25, 2012, Jarosz adjusts the revenues he opines are attributable to ABN's infringement of BankTrade. (Jarosz Decl., Ex. 2 at 2-3.) In addition, Jarosz highlights the importance of the BankTrade software, explaining that "RBS would face significant operational hurdles in its trade finance business if it were to immediately 'turn off BankTrade, and that it would take years and tens of millions of dollars to bring an alternative system online." (Id. at 5.) Jarosz further explains, in the context of "credit fees," that "[w]ithout the processing of a [letter of credit] or a guarantee, there w ould be no transaction" on which the bank could then derive additional revenue. (Id. at 10.) As a matter of fact, Jarosz has proffered reasonable estimates of revenues somehow connected to or touching BankTrade. His extensive analysis supports this much. As explained below, what is missing is the necessary causation component. II. Smith Report In contrast to Jarosz, Smith is proffered as a general expert in trade finance. (See generally Kaplan Decl., Ex. 5 ("Smith Report").) Smith was retained not to citation omitted).) Additionally, Jarosz cites to statements by other banks recognizing the value of trade finance to other aspects of their business. (See id. at 20.) 16 provide an opinion on the damages associated with ABN's infringement of BankTrade, but instead, to provide a tutorial on various aspects of trade finance and both their interrelatedness and connectedness to other areas of the bank. (See iQJ Smith's reports and deposition provide significant support for ABN's (and not CSI's) position on this motion: that a causal connection between BankTrade itself and specific trade finance revenues is lacking. In the course of his career, Smith worked at a financial institution that utilized BankTrade for trade finance (see Kaplan Decl., Ex. 4 ("Smith Dep.") at 14­ 15), as well as at other institutions that utilized similar such products (see generally id. at 15-50). Indeed, Smith has several decades of experience in trade finance as a former bank employee and as a consultant to banks, importers, and exporters. (Smith Report at 2.) Smith explains that software products (of which BankTrade is only one) have certain generic characteristics: The products used by banks to support their clients in the domestic trade finance area are usually identical with those used internationally because banks typically use the same computer software programs for the domes tic trade finance as they use for international trade finance. These computer programs typically link to other computer programs in the bank to provide a uniform approach to providing clients with the necessary related products to complete the trade finance transactions. (Id. at 5.) Smith states that trade finance brings revenue to banks both via "traditional paper-based transactions used to assist buyers and sellers" and additionally, with various other products that include collections, letters of credit, letters of guarantee, and other "commonly used traditional financing products" 17 including trade loans, letter of credit financing, trust receipts, shipping guarantees, and forfeiting. (Id. at 6-7.) Smith outlines a series of possible revenue streams that can be connected to a letter of credit. Chl. at 9-19.) In conjunction with this discussion, Smith notes that "[r]evenues associated with [l]etters of [c]redit al'e complex instruments and staff in this area of the bank are specialists in their field." (Id. at 9.) He also states that "[t]he complex nature of trade finance transactions fosters close relationships between banks and their corporate clients, and with other banks. Therefore trade finance is often used by a bank as a business development tool to obtain new clients or to broaden their relationship with existing clients." (Id. at 19.) Smith concludes by stating that "[t]rade finance is complex and even an apparently simple transaction involves a very large number of bank products, feesL] and lending based services . & quot; (Id. at 19.) Smith does not opine that trade finance relationships are more likely to start with a letter of credit than some other transaction; he does not opine that banks lacking specific software execution capabilities (let alone BankTrade) are disadvantaged versus other institutions in obtaining a customer's trade finance transactions; he does not opine that the software a bank may use for trade finance is more important than the human "specialists in their field" to which he refers. (Id. at 9.) III. Smith Deposition In his deposition, Smith testified that BankTrade provides core trade finance processing - and that he is aware that other software applications also provide such 18 processmg. (Smith Decl. at 24.) Smith recollected that at least from 2003 to 2009, there were five or six vendors providing such applications. (Id. at 24, 26.) Smith stated that each software application had its own approach to processing and functionality. (Id. at 25.) He agreed, however, that "(t]here is a certain basic set of functionality that appears to apply across those software suppliers that have remained in business." (Id.) Also during his deposition, Smith discussed a specific experience he had working for a banking institution (First Union) that transitioned to BankTrade. (Id. at 28.) Smith's deposition testimony is the only evidence in the record regarding whether there is a reasonable basis - or any basis - to infer a causal connection between use of BankTrade and the generation of revenue for a bank: Q: When BankTrade was implemented at First Union, did the level of foreign exchange transactions increase as a result of BankTrade? A: I would not say they increased or decreased as a result of having automated the process.
) Q: Would you say that automation of the process had no impact on the level of foreign exchange transactions? A: I am not aware of any impact on the number of transactions that we did. Q: Did it also increase the amount of trade finance loans that were extended by the bank? A: Not that I am aware of. 19 Q: Did the implementation of BankTrade change or impact the amount of collateral that the bank might take in in connection with letter of credit or other trade finance transactions? A: Not that I am aware of. I'd say it had the same impact there as it did on loans, for example, as interfaces that allowed us to do one-stop processing. Q: Did the implementation of BankTrade at First Union change the amount of overdrafts that the bank did in connection with trade finance transactions, including letters of credit? A: Not that I am aware of. Q: Did the implementation of BankTrade at First Union impact the lines of credit that First Union issued? A: It impacted the manner in which we utilized those lines of credit through automated interfaces to our credit management programs. Q: Did it impact the amount of lines of credit at the bank? A: Not that I am aware of. (Id. 28-30.)11 Further undercutting a specific software making a causal difference in revenue generation was Smith's testimony regarding work he has done for Citibank. (Id. at 37.) Smith explained that Citibank generally developed its own trade finance software applications or alternatively, purchased packaged products from vendors and then adapted those systems to meet its unique set of needs. (Id. at 40.) Smith 11 In two instances, with regard to "one-stop processing" and "automated interfaces," Smith's testimony is suggestive of some impact of automation (versus manual processing) having a potential (non-specific) impact. Given the ubiquity of automation and the prior testimony of similar functionality, this testimony cannot support a causal nexus to use of BankTrade and particular revenues. 20 avers that Citibank was an impressive entity, explaining that it was "on the ground with branches and offices in . a hundred countries at that point in time, and had the ability to do global trade finance business in 70 or 80 of those countries." (Id. at 41.) Smith could not, however, specifically recall the name of the trade finance processing system used by Citibank. (Id. at 40.) He did not recall Citibank marketing its core trade processing system for trade finance transactions by name; rather, Citibank marketed itself as being able to meet its clients' necessidades. (Id. at 49.) Smith agreed that his report did not opine on whether BankTrade generated any particular revenues for the bank. (Id. at 101.) He also did not have any opinion as to whether trade processing systems generated any particular revenues at ABN. (Id. at 104.) Further undercutting Jarosz's work tracing revenues from letters of credit through to other trade finance products, Smith testifies that a bank's customers might use one trade finance product and not another for reasons specific to their needs: Q: But it's also true that there are many lines of credit that pre-exist and don't necessarily contemplate use of them in connection with a letter of credit? A: That is true, and they may not be available then for use under letters of credit. (Id. at 161-62.) Q: And fundamentally, whether to issue a letter of credit to a particular customer is a credit-based, lending-type risk exposure-type decision? 21 A: I would say generally speaking. But I'm very careful in saying generally. There are a lot of other things that go into that. Q: And some of the fees that the bank charges for letters of credit are related to the cost of extending that credit; correct? A: That is correct. (ld. at 164-65 (emphasis added).) Q: [W]ould you agree that the primary consideration a bank takes into account when extending a letter of credit is whether the bank wants to risk its balance sheet assets, its cash, in connection with extending the letter of credit? Um: sim. (ld. at 171.) DISCUSSION As mentioned above, ABN now seeks to preclude CSI from presenting evidence of CSI's claim for indirect profits - i. e., those profits that stem from ABN's use of BankTrade. In its reply letter, 12 ABN argued that CSI cannot recover indirect profits because it failed to establish "a legally sufficient causal link between 12 On November 1, 2013, ABN submitted a letter to the Court explaining that in accordance with the Court's rules, ABN did not submit reply briefs to its motions in limine at the time of their initial filing. (See Def.'s 1111 Ltr. ("Def.'s Reply"), dated Nov. 1, 2013, ECF No. 330.) It requested that the Court consider certain pages contained in a letter it filed on October 28, 2013, which discussed some of the issues raised by CSI's opposition, in connection with the motion currently before the Court. The Court granted ABN's request. (See ECF No. 337.) 22 ABN's use of BankTrade and ABN's profits from its trade finance business." (See Def.'s Reply at 3.) In opposition, CSI argues that it has not sought profits beyond those that can be clearly traced back to ABN's use of BankTrade. CSI states that its experts identified revenue stemming "only from transactions processed through BankTrade" and then "adjusted that downward by apportioning it to account for the fact that, to generate this revenue, ABN also needed to use resources other than BankTrade," including personnel, other software, infrastructure, and the like. (See Pl.'s Mem. at 10 (emphasis in original).)13 Use is, of course, not necessarily evidence of causation. 14 The profits associated with ABN's use of BankTrade are necessarily indirect: they are based on assumptions regarding the use of BankTrade to lead to a transaction, which may lead to subsequent transactions (and subsequent profits) for ABN (and RBS). As set forth above, in order to make out such a claim for indirect profits, CSI bears the burden of showing a causal connection between ABN's use of BankTrade and the profits sought. See 17 U. S.C. A. § 504(b) (allowing a copyright owner to recover profits from the infringer that are "attributable to the 13 CSI too submitted a letter in reply, which the Court has taken into account in deciding this motion. (See Pl.'s 1111 Ltr. CPl.'s Reply), dated Nov. 1,2013, ECF No. 338.) In its reply letter, CSI brings two additional court cases not cited elsewhere to the attention of the Court. The Court has reviewed these cases. 14 In On Davis, the Second Circuit noted the legal potential for a damages theory based on use. See On Davis, 246 F.3d at 159-61. As stated there and in the case to which On Davis refers for this proposition, Business Trends Analysts, Inc., 887 F.2d 399 (2d Cir. 1989), a causal connection is required. 887 F.3d at 404. 23 infringement"); Polar Bear Prods., Inc., 384 F.3d at 713; Mackie, 296 F.3d at 915. Based on the evidence submitted, CSI has failed to meet this burden. While it is clear that BankTrade is related to and supports ABN's work in the trade finance sector - specifically by processing letters of credit and guarantees for ABN - CSI has failed to identify the ways in which ABN's profits are attributable specifically to BankTrade. For example, CSI's own witness, Donald R. Smith, suggested during his deposition that there are at least five or six core trade processing software companies that operate in the market; he stated that they all provide "a certain basic set of functionality. & quot; (See Smith Dep. at 24-27.) When asked, Smith stated explicitly that he did not know whether the revenues would have been any different had a processing system other than BankTrade been used by ABN. (Id. at 118.) Smith testified that when he witnessed the implementation of BankTrade at another bank, he was not aware of any increase in the number of foreign exchange transactions, trade finance loans, or lines of credit issued. (See id. at 28-30.) Notably, Smith also said he was not aware of BankTrade having any impact on the number of letters of credit issued at the bank. (See id. at 30 (explaining that BankTrade "impacted the manner in which we utilized those lines of credit through automated interfaces").) The Chief Administrative Officer of Global Trade Finance for ABN, Dermot Canavan, states that ABN does not promote its use of BankTrade to its customers ­ "ABN customers do not care what specific software or technology ABN uses to 24 deliver a trade finance service or product to them." (See Canavan Decl.
4-6, dated May 17, 2013.) Analogous to this, when Smith was asked about whether another large bank he had worked for explicitly marketed its core trade processing system for trade finance transactions, Smith said that the focus was on the capacity to produce results, not on the technology behind that capacity.15 (See Smith Dep. at 49.) Canavan also testified that throughout his time in meetings with bank employees responsible for selling trade finance products and services to ABN's customers, he never learned of a situation in which an ABN customer or prospective customer hired ABN specifically because of ABN's utilization of BankTrade. (Canavan Decl.
7.) Moreover, the evidence before the Court shows that while ABN's capacity to provide trade finance services to its customers was perhaps aided by its use of BankTrade, the services provided by ABN are the result of a number of other factors as well. (See Caravan Decl.,r 8.) Indeed, ABN uses a number of software applications and other technologies, in addition to skilled sales and trade finance personnel, to conduct its work. (Id.) See Business Trends Analysts, Inc., 887 F.3d at 404 (requiring that a copyright holder seeking to show an infringer benefited from an improved commercial reputation as a result of the infringement produce evidence illustrating the benefit derived specifically from the infringement, separate and apart from other possible contributing factors). 15 Smith testified that he did not recall marketing the processing system by name. (Smith Dep. at 49.) Smith stated: "We marketed our capability at delivering and exceeding the client's expectations." (Id.) 25 Additionally, while CSI's papers cite to the 2001 Project Proposal for the proposition that BankTrade is critical to increasing the company's trade revenues, CSI has not provided evidence that BankTrade was itself responsible for any revenue generated by ABN years later, when ABN began infringing on CSI's copyright. The Project Proposal is prospective in nature; it pre-dated the incorporation of BankTrade into ABN's back-office processing system (indeed, this was the desired outcome of the proposal). Moreover, the Project Proposal is an internal marketing tool designed to convince decision-makers to obtain BankTrade. While this may show that certain individuals at ABN thought that BankTrade would be useful, it does not do anything to illustrate whether BankTrade in fact proved to be useful (let alone profitable) to ABN. Jarosz states in his rebuttal report that "BankTrade does not appear to be an inconsequential element of RBS's trade finance business." (Jarosz Decl., Ex. 2 at 22.) \Vhile this may be true, that is far from setting forth the causal relationship required under the law. CSI seeks recovery from too large a swath of ABN activities. (See Jarosz Decl., Ex. 1 at 27-39.) First, CSI does not simply seek disgorgement of the fees obtained when ABN used BankTrade to process letters of credit and guarantees; CSI does not even limit its request to solely those transactions that occurred on BankTrade. Instead, CSI seeks all sums that it believes should be credited to BankTrade, including those that did not themselves "flow through" the software. (See generally id. at 27-41.) See DaimlerChrysler Servs., 2006 WL 208787, *4 (denying indirect profits when 26 such profits are traceable to a complicated "income stream") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Second, CSI essentially argues: (1) that specific transactions occurred because of BankTrade; and (2) that but-for BankTrade, certain transactions would not have occurred. (See Jarosz Decl., Ex. 1 at 21 (discussing transactions that "are a direct result of' BankTrade activity), 27 (explaining, for example, that "but for the transaction flowing through BankTrade, the currency traders would not have had the opportunity to earn the spread on that currency trade"), 33 (discussing trade financing transactions that "caused" customers to hold additional deposits or post collateral).) Yet, CSI fails to provide any evidence in support of the "causation" assertions embedded in these claims. There is no evidence that a single specific transaction would have occurred but for BankTrade or would not have occurred without BankTrade. BankTrade need not be the sole causal factor - but, there must be evidence that it is f! causal factor. Third, CSI's analysis of indirect profits covers all transactions that flowed through BankTrade, even for those customers whose banking relationship with RBS predated its acquisition of BankTrade. Jarosz referred to the "stickiness" of trade finance and Smith to the complexity of the relationships as well as specific expertise of personnel; these points undercut a causal relationship between BankTrade and pre-existing trade finance customers (those customers were already in the "sticky" relationship; those customers already had the complex relationship with banking personnel). (See Jarosz Dec. Ex. 1 at 5, 19; Smith Report at 19.) Related to this is 27 the fact that CSI has failed to account for pre-existing ABN trade finance customers - those who were ABN customers prior to RBS's acquisition of ABN - who were using BankTrade in a perfectly lawful manner. There is no evidence that pre ­ existing ABN trade finance customers engaged in post-acquisition trade finance transactions because of BankTrade. Fourth, CSI fails to account for the fact that some customers (before and after ABN's acquisition of BankTrade) may well have their initial letter of credit without ever having their transaction run through BankTrade. (See Def.'s Mem. at 5 (explaining that ABN has four different systems to process letters of credit and guarantees - the three others being PSI, Smooth, and Score and that whether a transaction is processed on BankTrade "is a decision made by ABN and depends on the characteristics of the transaction, including its location").) For these customers, the initial "sticky" trade finance relationship may not have been through BankTrade and therefore subsequent transactions could not necessarily be attributed to BankTrade. Fifth, CSI fails to account for the individual credit and trade finance needs that may have factored into a customer's decision to obtain anyone of the trade finance services Jarosz includes a customer may have many reasons to need a service no matter what software was used: that need may well have entirely driven the decision to work with ABN. The Court recognizes that there is tension between holding the leash on causation so tightly that an infringer whose business utilizes a product indirectly 28 -------_ . can profit and not face disgorgement of such profits, and the Copyright Act's concern with protecting copyright holders from infringement. In this ruling, the Court does not suggest that there is no scenario in which a copyright holder and even CSI on a different record - could demonstrate a sufficient causal nexus, even when multiple factors are contributing to a company's profits. Here, CSI has failed to meet its burden. CONCLUSION For all of the reasons aforementioned, CSI has failed to make a sufficient evidentiary showing of a causal connection between BankTrade and ABN profits. Accordingly, ABN's motion in limine to preclude evidence of indirect profits is hereby GRANTED. The Court notes that pending before the Court (but not yet fully briefed) is CSI's motion for a permanent injunction. (See ECF No. 313.) ABN intends to oppose that motion and has specifically sought additional time in which to "gather facts in support of its opposition." (See ECF No. 342.) If ABN opposes CSI's motion on a basis that requires certain factual support, the Court may allow some additional factual development of the record; under the appropriate circumstances, if such facts reveal the causal connection described as necessary above, CSI may consider whether to seek leave to allow evidence of transactions causally-related to BankTrade to go to the jury. More would be needed than here provided. 29 _ .. - The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 327. Dated: New York, New York November i', 2013 KATHERINE B. FORREST United States District Judge 30.