## Facts

- Computer Associates International, Inc. (CA) and Altai, Inc. litigated in U.S. federal court over whether Altai’s OSCAR software copied CA’s ADAPTER component of CA-SCHEDULER.
- In the U.S. case, the district court found OSCAR 3.4 infringed but OSCAR 3.5 did not; the Second Circuit affirmed the U.S. noninfringement determination as to OSCAR 3.5.
- While the U.S. case was pending, CA sued Altai and its French distributor in France, alleging that distribution of OSCAR 3.5 violated CA’s French copyright.
- A French trial court ruled that OSCAR 3.5 did not infringe CA’s French copyright; CA pursued an appeal within the French courts.
- Altai moved in the Eastern District of New York for an anti-suit injunction to stop CA from continuing the French appeal, asserting claim preclusion and issue preclusion based on the prior U.S. judgment.
- The district court denied the injunction, and Altai appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the prior U.S. judgment of noninfringement under U.S. copyright law claim-precluded CA from pursuing a French copyright action concerning the same software.
2. Whether determinations underlying the U.S. noninfringement ruling issue-precluded CA from relitigating relevant questions in France.
3. Whether the standards for granting a foreign anti-suit injunction, including comity concerns, were satisfied.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the denial of Altai’s motion for an injunction.
- Claim preclusion did not apply because the French action sought to vindicate rights created and governed by a different sovereign’s copyright law.
- Issue preclusion did not apply because the issues in France were not “identical” to those decided in the U.S. action, given potentially different infringement standards under French law.
- Comity and the narrow scope of foreign anti-suit injunctions counseled against restraining the French proceedings where they did not threaten U.S. jurisdiction or nullify the U.S. judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Copyright is territorial; rights under one nation’s copyright law are distinct from rights under another’s, even as to the same work and alleged copying.
- Claim preclusion requires, among other elements, the same cause of action; a claim under foreign copyright law is not the same cause of action as a claim under U.S. copyright law.
- Issue preclusion requires an identical issue actually litigated and necessary to the prior judgment; differences in governing legal standards may defeat “identity” for estoppel purposes.
- Foreign anti-suit injunctions are exceptional and require careful regard for international comity; they are generally inappropriate absent duplication that threatens the enjoining court’s jurisdiction or strong public policies, or otherwise warrants restraint.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that a U.S. judgment of noninfringement under U.S. copyright law did not, through claim or issue preclusion, justify enjoining a party from pursuing an appeal in France asserting independent French copyright rights, and that comity supported denying a foreign anti-suit injunction.


Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 126 F.3d 365 (2d Cir. 1997)