United States District Court, Eastern District of New York
CAEL TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., Plaintiff,
PRECISE VOTING, LLC, PRECISE VOTING, LLC, VOTRITE, LLC, Defendants.
SABHARWAL & FINKEL, LLC BY: ADAM D. FINKEL, ESQ. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
CITTONE & CHINTA LLP BY: HENRY JOSEPH CITTONE, ESQ. PADMAJA CHINTA, ESQ. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
BARRY M. KRIVISKY, ESQ. BY: BARRY M. KRIVISKY, ESQ. ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Leonard D. Wexler United States District Judge
Before the Court is the Plaintiffs motion to dismiss Defendants' counterclaims, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Defendants oppose the motion. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs motion is denied.
I. The Facts Alleged in the Complaint
Plaintiff, Cael Technologies ("Cael"), is an Indian corporation that specializes in providing customized software applications, software product development and other software products and services. (Compl. ¶ 1.) Defendants Precise Voting, a New York limited liability company ("Precise New York"), and Precise Voting, a Delaware limited liability company ("Precise Delaware"), are in the business of manufacturing and marketing electronic voting machines and services in the United States. (Compl. ¶¶ 3-6.) Defendant VotRite is a wholly owned subsidiary of Precise Voting and is a provider of electronic voting machines and services, including rentals, in the United States. (Compl. ¶ 9.)
In early 2005, Plaintiff was approached by an Indian company, SSW Information Technology Services Private Limited ("WITS India"), to develop an electronic voting machine system to be marketed worldwide, including in the United States, by the WITS Group Inc. ("WITS Group"). (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18.) In May 2005, Plaintiff entered into an agreement with WITS India for the development of a functional voting machine prototype for the United States market. (Compl. ¶ 19.) The Advanced Electronic Voting System ("AEVS") prototype was to be made solely for marketing and demonstration purposes and not for sale. (Compl. ¶ 20.) Plaintiff referred to the new voting system as "VotRite." (Compl. ¶ 21.)
Around the same time, Plaintiff entered into an agreement with another Indian company, Analogic Technomatics Private Limited ("Analogic"), who was to provide the hardware box for the AEVS prototype exclusively for Plaintiff and based solely on Plaintiffs specifications. (Compl. ¶ 21.) On or about June 28, 2005, Plaintiff delivered the functional AEVS prototype to the WITS Group in New Jersey. (Compl. ¶ 22.) Plaintiff subsequently delivered four more functional AEVS prototypes to the WITS Group in New Jersey between late 2005 and August 2006, pursuant to purchase orders placed by the WITS Group. (Compl. ¶ 23.)
In 2008, Plaintiff registered its copyright in the software and source code for the AEVS prototype in India and was issued Certificate of Registration No. SW-3 861/2008 entitled "Cael Voting Systems Software." (Compl. ¶ 28.) Plaintiff is the sole owner of this copyright. (Compl. ¶ 30.)
In or about September 2006, Plaintiff entered into another agreement with Analogic for the manufacture of a close-to-production AEVS prototype, again using software exclusively developed for Plaintiff and based solely on Plaintiffs specifications. (Compl. ¶ 31.) Plaintiff incorporated the copyrighted Cael Voting Systems Software into the AEVS prototype provided by Analogic and gave it to Analogic for completion of the hardware. (Compl. ¶ 32.) Analogic, however, failed to deliver the close-to-production AEVS prototype to Plaintiff. (Compl. ¶ 32.)
In or about early 2007, Plaintiff grew suspicious of Analogic and WITS India and cautioned WITS India against using or reengineering its copyrighted Cael Voting Systems Software through Analogic or anyone else. (Compl. ¶ 34.) In July 2007, Plaintiff commenced arbitration proceedings against Analogic in India for breach of its 2006 agreement and to prevent Analogic from exploiting Plaintiffs copyrighted software. (Compl. ¶ 35.) During these proceedings, an interim injunction was issued against Analogic and material evidence was seized from Analogic, including hard drives. (Compl. ¶ 35.)
In or about August 2012, Plaintiff received the confidential report of the Andrha Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratories from the arbitrator. (Compl. ¶ 36.) The report concluded that the hard drives seized from Analogic contained ...