## Facts

- Richard Ross and Randy Wigginton collaborated in 1984–1985 on a Macintosh spreadsheet program: Ross wrote the computational “engine,” while Wigginton wrote the user interface.
- The parties had no written collaboration agreement beyond a nondisclosure agreement.
- Ross provided Wigginton some interface-related input, including a handwritten list of desired user commands, but Wigginton wrote the interface code.
- In early 1985, Ross and Wigginton disagreed about how to publish and market the program: Ross preferred publishing through his company (Bravo Technologies), while Wigginton sought an established publisher.
- Wigginton presented the project to employees of Ashton-Tate; after Ross confronted him about the presentation, Wigginton joined Ashton-Tate and continued interface work there.
- Ashton-Tate commercially released “Full Impact,” combining Wigginton’s interface work with a computational engine owned by Ashton-Tate.
- Ross separately released a competing spreadsheet program, “MacCalc,” based on his own engine with a different interface.
- Ashton-Tate sued for declaratory relief that it owned the Full Impact copyright; Ross and Bravo counterclaimed for copyright infringement and trade-secret misappropriation.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Ashton-Tate, declared Ashton-Tate the sole copyright owner of Full Impact, and held the trade-secret claims time-barred; Ross and Bravo appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Ross had a copyright interest in Full Impact as a joint author based on his contributions to the program, including his interface-related ideas and command list.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in refusing to consider Ross and Bravo’s late supplemental opposition materials and in proceeding without additional discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f).
3. Whether Ross and Bravo’s trade-secret misappropriation claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Ashton-Tate.
- The court held Ross and Bravo had no copyright interest in Full Impact and Ashton-Tate was properly declared the sole copyright owner.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding late-filed opposition materials and by rejecting further Rule 56(f) relief.
- The court held the trade-secret claims were time-barred because the alleged misappropriation occurred in 1985 and the claims were not asserted until 1988.

## Legal Principles

- Joint authorship requires each claimed author to contribute copyrightable expression; contributions of ideas, functional concepts, or a list of proposed commands are not enough.
- In software disputes, actual coding or other protectable expressive implementation matters more than high-level specifications when determining authorship and ownership.
- District courts have discretion to enforce summary-judgment briefing schedules and to disregard untimely affidavits or briefs.
- A party opposing summary judgment on the ground that discovery is needed must timely and adequately seek relief under Rule 56(f) (now Rule 56(d)).
- Trade-secret claims are barred when brought outside the limitations period after the claimant had actual or constructive notice of the alleged misappropriation.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld a declaration that Ashton-Tate solely owned the Full Impact copyright because Ross’s interface-related input was not copyrightable expression and he did not author the interface code, affirmed the district court’s management of the summary-judgment record, and rejected the trade-secret counterclaims as untimely.


Ashton-Tate Corp. v. Ross, 916 F.2d 516 (9th Cir. 1990)