CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
19-1857
GEORGE MARVASO; MARY MARVASO; GEORGE F. MARVASO, SUNDAY GAINS,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
RICHARD SANCHEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.

19-1870/1882
GEORGE MARVASO; MARY MARVASO; GEORGE F. MARVASO,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
JOHN ADAMS and MICHAEL J. REDDY, JR. (19-1882); MICHAEL J. REDDY, SR. (19-1870),
Defendant-Appellant.
   Nos. 19-1857/1870/1882
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Flint.
Nos. 4:18-cv-12193 (19-1857); 4:18-cv-12442 (19-1870/1882)—Linda V. Parker, District Judge.
Argued: April 30, 2020
Decided and Filed: August 21, 2020
Before: COLE, Chief Judge; CLAY and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

CLAY, Circuit Judge. This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arises from a criminal investigation of Plaintiffs for a fire that occurred at their restaurant in Westland, Michigan. In Case No. 19-1882, Defendants John Adams and Michael Reddy Jr. appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ civil conspiracy claim on qualified immunity grounds. In Case No. 19-1870, Defendant Michael Reddy Sr. appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ civil conspiracy claim for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. And in Case No. 19-1857, Defendant Richard Sanchez appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment unlawful search and seizure claim on qualified immunity grounds. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss Reddy Sr.’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction and affirm the district court’s order with respect to the other Defendants.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
ECIMOS, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant,
v.
CARRIER CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
   Nos. 19-5436/5519
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis.
No. 2:15-cv-02726—Jon Phipps McCalla, District Judge.
Argued: March 13, 2020
Decided and Filed: August 21, 2020
Before: BOGGS, CLAY, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

BOGGS, Circuit Judge. Carrier and ECIMOS once had a long-standing business relationship that has now deteriorated. Carrier is a leading manufacturer of residential Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (“HVAC”) systems and ECIMOS once produced the quality control system that tested completed HVAC units at the end of Carrier’s assembly line. The present dispute centers on Carrier’s alleged infringement of ECIMOS’s copyright on its database-script source code—a part of ECIMOS’s software that stores test results. ECIMOS alleges that Carrier improperly used the database—indeed copied certain aspects of the code—to aid a third-party’s development of a new testing software that Carrier now employs in its Collierville, Tennessee manufacturing facility. ECIMOS sued for copyright infringement and breach of contract and won a $7.5 million jury award.

Following trial, Carrier filed a renewed Rule 50 motion for a judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, a Rule 59(e) motion to amend the judgment or for a new trial. It contended that it did not infringe on ECIMOS’s copyright as a matter of law and objected to most of the $7.5 million jury award. The district court denied most of the motion, finding that there was no basis to conclude that there was no infringement as a matter of law; but it granted the motion in part, reducing Carrier’s total damages liability to $6,782,800. Carrier now appeals those decisions.

ECIMOS also filed a post-trial motion and asked the court to enjoin Carrier from using or disclosing ECIMOS’s trade secrets and from using its third-party-developed database until a new, non-infringing database could be developed from scratch. ECIMOS also moved to amend the jury award so that it could receive even more damages from Carrier. The district court: (1) enjoined Carrier from using its new database, but stayed the injunction until Carrier could develop a new, non-infringing database subject to the supervision of a special master; (2) enjoined Carrier from disclosing ECIMOS’s trade secrets, but also held that certain elements of ECIMOS’s system were not protectable as trade secrets (such as ECIMOS’s assembled hardware) and thus did not enjoin Carrier from using ECIMOS’s system; and (3) rejected ECIMOS’s motion to amend the jury award. ECIMOS now appeals those decisions.

We hold that there are sufficient reasons to conclude that Carrier did infringe on ECIMOS’s copyright, but that Carrier’s liability to ECIMOS based on its copyright infringement and its breach of contract can total no more than $5,566,050. We also hold that the district court Nos. 19-5436/5519 ECIMOS, LLC v. Carrier Corp., et al. Page 3 did not err when it crafted its post-trial injunctions. For the reasons that follow, we therefore affirm in part and reverse in part the district court’s rulings.