BHL Boresight, Inc. v. Geo-Steering Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 419

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDERS. GSSI's Objection to the Magistrate's Orders, Doc. 415 is OVERRULED and Magistrate Judge's Orders, Docs. 410 and 414 are AFFIRMED. (Signed by Judge Melinda Harmon) Parties notified.(jdav, 4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
BHL BORESIGHT, INC., et al,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
GEO-STEERING SOLUTIONS, INC., et al,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

June 29, 2018
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:15-CV-00627

ORDER AND OPINION
AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDERS
Pending before the Court in the above-referenced proceeding is Movant Geo-Steering
Solutions, Inc., Geo-Steering Solutions USA, Inc., Darrell Joy, and Neil Tice’s (collectively
“GSSI”) Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Orders, which denied GSSI’s Motion to Compel
Production of BHL Source Code, Doc. 415; the Magistrate’s Orders, Docs. 410 & 414; BHL
Boresight, Inc.’s (“BHL”) Response, Doc. 417, and GSSI’s Reply, Doc. 418. Upon review, the
Court overrules GSSI’s objections and affirms the Magistrate Judge’s orders.
The facts of this case are not repeated here, but are detailed in earlier opinions.
Magistrate Judge Stacy held that the source code of the disputed software is irrelevant for
two reasons: (1) BHL “has made no claim” nor does it intend to assert a claim “on any copying
by Defendants of its source code,” Doc. 410, and (2) “[n]either the Boresight software nor
BHL’s source code are the subject of registered copyrights that could even be asserted against
Defendants,” Doc. 414.
In its objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Orders above, GSSI asserts that the Magistrate
Judge erred (1) because GSSI’s copyright counterclaims “stand alone” whether or not BHL
intends to bring a copyright claim; and (2) because this Court has “held that a copyright
1/2

registration is not required for a declarant to bring a declaratory judgment of no copyright
infringement.” Doc. 415 at 5–6. Thus, GSSI asserts that the “BHL Source Code is highly
relevant evidence necessary to prove up the GSSI’s Copyright Counterclaims.” Id. at 4. And
GSSI requests either that a fact-finder adjudicate the claim “based on the evidence,” after
production of the source code, or by BHL “stipulating to no copyright infringement.” Id.
Whether this is a copyright dispute or a trade secrets dispute, the source code is not
relevant. The record indicates that this software ownership dispute centers not around the source
code, but on the presentation and appearance and other non-literal elements of the software.
Because different source codes can arrive at the same non-literal elements, the Court affirms the
Magistrate Judge’s Order. GSSI does not require the software’s source code to prove its
Counterclaims. See generally Abarca Health, LLC v. PharmPix Corp., 806 F. Supp.2d 483, 491
(D. Puerto Rico, 2011) (denying production of source code because a party does not need the
source code to examine similarities between non-literal elements of the software). Accordingly,
the Court hereby
OVERRULES GSSI’s Objections to the Magistrate’s Orders, Doc. 415, and AFFIRMS
the Magistrate Judge’s Orders, Docs. 410 & 414.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 27th day of June, 2018.
___________________________________
MELINDA HARMON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2