decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

SCO Litigation - From Soup to Nuts

Here's a chart to show you main events in all the SCO and SCO-related litigation from 2003 to the present. Note that there are links to the Timeline pages where you will find all the filings in each case, should you wish to find more information.


IBM: SCO Group v. International Business Machines, Inc., Utah District Court [Timeline] [Summary]
RH: Red Hat, Inc v. SCO Group, District Court of Delaware [Timeline]
Novell: SCO Group v. Novell, Inc, Utah District Court [Timeline] [Appeal timeline]
SUSE: SUSE Linux GmbH (Germany) v. The SCO Group, inc (USA), ICC International Court of Arbitration
AZ: SCO Group v. AutoZone, District Court of Nevada [Timeline]
DC: SCO Group v. Daimler-Chrysler Corp, Oakland County 6th Judicial Circuit Court [Timeline]
Yarro: The Canopy Group, Inc. et al v. Ralph J. Yarro III et al. / Yarro et al v. Kreidel et al, Fourth Judicial District Court, Utah County [Timeline]
BK: SCO Bankruptcy, Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware [Timeline]
2003
06-Mar-2003 IBM Caldera Systems, Inc., d/b/a The SCO Group, files complaint against IBM in Utah state court, Third Judicial District, Salt Lake County [Text]. Case removed from Utah District Court on March 25, 2003 to federal court on IBM's [01] Notice of Removal, to US District Court for the District of Utah; case assigned to Judge Dale Kimball on March 26
04-Aug-2003 RH [01] Complaint filed by Red Hat against SCO Group.
12-Dec-2003 IBM [94] Order granting [44] IBM's motion to compel Discovery, granting [68] IBM's second motion to compel discovery.
2004
20-Jan-2004 Novell [00] Complaint filed by SCO Group in Utah state court, in the Third Judicial District Court of Salt Lake County [Text]. [01] Case removed to federal court, US District Court for the District of Utah, on Novell's Notice of Removal [text] on February 6, 2004 and assigned to Judge Dale Kimball
27-Feb-2004 IBM [108] SCO's Second Amended complaint; jury demand
03-Mar-2004 AZ [01] Complaint filed against AutoZone by SCO Group [Text]
DC Complaint filed against Daimler Chrysler by SCO Group in Michigan state court, Oakland County, 6th Judicial Circuit Court [pdf] [Text]
29-Mar-2004 IBM [127] IBM's 2nd Amended Counterclaim. Here are the Remaining IBM Counterclaims after they dropped their 3 patent counterclaims in October 2005.
06-Apr-2004 RH [34] Memorandum Order denying SCO's [08] Motion to Dismiss. (SCO's [09] Opening Brief in Support [text]; Red Hat's [13] Memorandum in Opposition [text].) Case is stayed pending resolution of Utah litigation between SCO and IBM; parties shall each submit a letter every 90 days as to the status of the Utah litigation; if the Utah litigation is not proceeding in an orderly and efficient fashion the court may reconsider the stay [Text]
09-June-2004 Novell [29] Memorandum Decision. SCO's motion [11] to remand is denied. Novell's Motion [02] to Dismiss is denied as to SCO's pleading of falsity and granted as to SCO's pleading of special damages.
21-Jul-2004 DC DaimlerChrysler's [April 14, 2004] Motion for Summary Disposition [text] granted, with one exception, whether SCO's demand for certification by licensees within 30 days was reasonable, which the judge ruled could not be settled on summary judgment [Eyewitness Reports of Hearing] [Article] [Transcript of hearing - order from the bench]
06-Aug-2004 AZ [35] Order on AutoZone's Motion for Stay is granted. Parties to submit a letter every 90 days. AutoZone's [09] Motion for Transfer [text] is denied without prejudice [Text]
17-Dec-2004 Yarro Yarro replaced as CEO of Canopy Group by William Mustard. [Article]
21-Dec-2004 DC Stipulated Order Without Prejudice closing the case. [Text]
29-Dec-2004 DC SCO Files Appeal [Article]
2005
21-Jan-2005 DC [06] Order: Dismissal - Administrative - Jurisdiction [Article]
29-Jan-2005 Yarro Yarro et al sue Canopy Group [complaint; text] for unlawful ouster; Canopy files countersuit [text]
09-Feb-2005 IBM [398] Memorandum Decision denying SCO's [144] amended motion to Dismiss or to Stay Count Ten of IBM's Second Amended Counterclaims, denying without prejudice IBM's [152] cross motion for partial summary judgment on claim for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, mooting SCO's [195] motion in further opposition to IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Jgm, denying IBM's [246] motion to strike materials, denying without prejudice IBM's [225] motion for partial summary judgment on Breach of Contract Claims, denying without prejudice IBM's [233] motion for partial summary judgment on its counterclaim for copyright infringement (eighth counterclaim). The court will not entertain any dispositive motions until after discovery is complete.
02-Mar-2005 DC File Closed-Out
08-Mar-2005 Yarro Yarro-Canopy cases settle
27-Jun-2005 Novell [75] Order denying Novell's Motion [35] to Dismiss the Amended Complaint.
01-Jul-2005 IBM [466] Memorandum Decision denying [322] Motion to Amend/Correct/File Third Amended Complaint, granting [374] SCO Motion to Compel IBM to produce Samuel J. Palmisano for deposition.
22-Dec-2005 IBM Final Deadline for Parties to Identify with Specificity All Allegedly Misused Material
2006
06-Feb-2006 Novell [96] SCO's Second Amended Complaint with jury demand.
17-Mar-2006 IBM Close of All Remaining Discovery.
10-Apr-2006 SUSE SUSE Linux GmbH files request for arbitration with the Secretariat of the ICC International Court of Arbitration in Paris, pursuant to the terms of the UnitedLinux contracts. [ICC Rules]
11-Apr-2006 Novell Novell's [104] Motion to Stay Claims Raising Issues Subject to Arbitration. This motion will be granted in part on 21-Aug-2006 by [139].
Novell's [115] Answer to SCO's Second Amended Complaint and Counterclaims.
28-Jun-2006 IBM [718] Order granting in part IBM's Motion to Limit SCO's Claims . Signed by Judge Brooke C. Wells on 28-Jun-2006. [Text]
25-Sep-2006 IBM Partial Summary Judgment Motions [Table] [IBM's 597 Exhibits in Support of Motions] [Static page]
21-Oct-2006 SUSE The Chairman of the Arbitral Tribunal issues the "Terms of Reference" for signature. This document, which provides the parties' positions, is subsequently signed by the other members of the Tribunal as well as by SCO and SUSE Linux GmbH.
29-Nov-2006 IBM [884] Order Affirming Magistrate Judge's Order of June 28, 2006. Novell to go to trial first [Text]
30-Nov-2006 IBM Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells granted from the bench IBM's [695] Motion to Strike Allegations in Excess of the Final Disclosures [text]. Written Order to be prepared by IBM [Article]
2007
30-Apr-2007 Novell End of discovery
05-Jul-2007 SUSE Bankruptcy filing [142] Affidavit of Felix Imendoerffer, attached to SUSE's [141] Special Opposition to SCO's [69] Motion to Enforce the Automatic Stay [article] reveals that the Swiss Tribunal addressed the parties' jurisdictional objections, completing Phase I. Rejecting SCO's jurisdictional objections, the Tribunal held that the UnitedLinux Contracts obligate SCO to arbitrate SUSE Linux GmbH's claims and certain of SCO's counterclaims in Switzerland before the Tribunal, subject to Swiss law. Hearing set for December 3-14, 2007.
10-Aug-2007 Novell [377] Memorandum Decision and Order on Partial Summary Judgments. Resolves: [147] Novell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Preliminary Injunction is granted in part and denied in part;
[180] SCO's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment on Novell's Third, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Counterclaims is granted in part and denied in part;
[171] Novell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its Fourth Claim is granted;
[224] SCO's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Novell's Fourth Claim is denied;
[258] SCO's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its First, Second, and Fifth Claims and Novell's First Claim is denied;
[271] Novell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Copyright Ownership of SCO's Second Claim for Breach of Contract and Fifth Claim for Unfair Competition is granted;
[273] Novell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on SCO's Non-Compete Claims in its Second and Fifth Claims is granted in part and denied in part;
[275] Novell's Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's First Claim for Slander of Title and Third Claim for Specific Performance is granted;
and [277] Novell's Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's First Claim for Slander of Title for Failure to Establish Special Damages is ruled moot. [Article] [Text]
14-Sep-2007 BK [01] Chapter 11 Voluntary Petition of The SCO Group, Inc. (Attachments: (1) Board Resolutions, (2) Certification and List of 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors, (3) Certification and List of Equity Security Holders, (4) Corporate Ownership Statement, (5) Certification and Creditor Matrix) [SCO Operations and SCO Group's Creditor Matrix as text] [Article] [Article]. This stays all pending litigation where SCO is defendant.
14-Nov-2007 BK [204] Order Granting Debtor The SCO Group, Inc.'s Motion To Enforce The Automatic Stay [in the SUSE arbitration] (related document(s) [69] [141]). Order signed on 13-Nov-2007.
27-Nov-2007 BK [233] Order granting Novell's [89] Motion For Relief From Stay to Proceed with the Lawsuit [Text]
2008
29-Apr-2008 Novell Bench Trial Begins.
Transcript, Day 1, April 29, 2008 (Opening statements, testimony by witnesses called by Novell Joseph La Sala, Chris Sontag) [Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Text]
Transcript, Day 2, April 30, 2008 (Sontag continues, then Darl McBride, Greg Jones and then SCO calls first witness, John Masciaszek) [Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, text]
Transcript, Day 3, May 1, 2008 (SCO witnesses William Broderick, Jean Acheson, Jeff Hunsaker, and Jay Petersen) [Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, text],
Transcript, Day 4, May 2, 2008 (Andrew Nagle; then closing statements) [PDF, text]
16-Jul-2008 Novell [542] Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 16-Jul-2008. [Text]
22-Sep-2008 AZ [81] It is Ordered the stay in this case shall expire on 31-Dec-2008 at which time the parties will be required to proceed with the prosecution of this case [Article]. [87] Transcript of Proceedings, Status Conference held on 22-Sep-2008, before Judge Robert C. Jones [Text].
20-Nov-2008 Novell [565] Final Judgment. Case Closed. [Text]
25-Nov-2008 Novell [567] SCO Files Notice of Appeal. [Article] [Article]
SCO's Appeal Brief [Text], Novell's appellate brief [Text], SCO's Reply Brief [Text].
2009
11-Feb-2009 AZ [91] Answer to Complaint with Jury Demand [Text].
12-Mar-2009 BK [717] SCO withdraws auction motion [Article] after IBM objects to SCO disclosure statement and to APA motion; and Novell objects to reorganization plan.
21-Apr-2009 BK [744] Order Denying Fourth Motion by Debtors Under Section 1121(d) for Extension of Exclusivity Deadlines [Article].
22-Apr-2009 Novell [595] Costs Taxed in amount of $ 99,639.09 for Defendant against Plaintiff [Article]. ([573] Novell's 10-Dec-2008 Bill of Costs [Text]. SCO's Motion to Stay Taxation of Costs was Denied.)
05-Aug-2009 BK SCO BK [891] Order Denying Motions to Convert to Chapter 7 by US Trustee [750], IBM [751] and Novell [753] and Denying SCO's Motion [815] For Sale of Property under Section 363(b).
Followed by 25-Aug-2009 Order [900] Approving Appointment Of Chapter 11 Trustee [Article].
24-Aug-2009 Novell SCO v. Novell appellate decision [Text]. Affirmed in part, Reverse; Remanded. Terminated on the merits after oral hearing. Written, signed, published. Judges Lucero, Baldock and McConnell (authoring).
Judge Dale A. Kimball recuses himself from the Novell (docket entry [596]) and IBM cases (docket entry [1086]).
20-Oct-2009 Novell Order filed by Judges Lucero, Baldock and McConnell denying petition for rehearing en banc filed by Appellee Novell, Inc. [Article]
28-Oct-2009 Order filed by Judges Lucero and Baldock denying Attorney motion [9705604] for stay filed by Appellee Novell, Inc.. Served on 28-Oct-2009. [Article]
29-Oct-2009 Mandate issued. [Text]
15-Dec-2009 AZ [120] Order on Stipulation Granting [119] Stipulation of Dismissal with prejudice [Text], each party to bear own fees and costs. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 15-Dec-2009.
2010
15-Jan-2010 BK [1037] Order Denying Suse's Motion [951] For Relief From The Automatic Stay To Complete International Arbitration. [Text]
04-Mar-2010 Novell Petition for a writ of certiorari filed with the Supreme Court of the United States by Novell. [PDF] [Case: 09-1061]. SCO's brief in opposition.
08-Mar-2010 Novell Jury Trial Begins. Groklaw's Reports from the Trial:
    week 1 Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, Day 4, Day 5,
    week 2 Day 6, Day 7, Day 8, Day 9, Day 10,
    week 3 Day 11, Day 12, Day 13, Day 14, Day 15.
30-Mar-2010 Novell [846] Jury Verdict [Article].
We, the jury, unanimously find as follows:
1. Did the amended Asset Purchase Agreement transfer the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights from Novell to SCO? Yes       No   ✓  
10-Jun-2010 Novell [876] Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that Novells claim for declaratory judgment is Granted; that SCOs claims for specific performance and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing are Denied.
[877] Memorandum Decision denying [871] Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law; denying [874] Motion for New Trial.
[878] Judgment in favor of Novell, Inc. against SCO Group. Case Closed. [Text]
07-Jul-2010 Novell SCO files Notice of Appeal [881] [PDF] [Article].
SCO's Appeal Brief [Text], Novell's appellate brief [Text], SCO's Reply Brief [PDF] [Text] [Article].
11-Aug-2010 Novell Motion to dismiss petition for a writ of certiorari filed with the Supreme Court of the United States by Novell. Granted by court on 26-Aug-2010. [Article]
06-Dec-2010 Novell Costs Taxed in amount of $ 187,817.95 for Novell against SCO [894][PDF] [Text].
(Novell's 24-Jun-2010 Bill of Costs [879] [PDF] [Article]. SCO's Motion to Stay Taxation of Costs was Denied.)


© Copyright 2008-2011 Pamela Jones

This page is maintained by PJ and Erwan.


Last Updated Sunday, January 02 2011 @ 04:30 PM EST


Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )