The dispute in this case arises from Pro-Med Clinical Systems, LLC’s
(“Pro-Med”) use of Pro-Med Maximus, paper templates designed to capture a
physician-patient encounter, and the electronic version of that product developed
by Pro-Med. Utopia Provider Systems, Inc. (“Utopia”) alleges that both products
are derivatives of its paper templates, ED Maximus.1 Pursuant to an agreement in
effect between October 1, 2001, and October 1, 2006 (the “License Agreement” or
“Agreement”), Utopia licensed ED Maximus to Pro-Med and Pro-Med was
obligated to pay Utopia royalties if any portion of ED Maximus was provided to
an end user. In 2003, Utopia obtained a copyright for ED Maximus, effective as
of October 29, 2001.
Contending that Pro-Med committed unauthorized use of ED Maximus and
failed to pay royalties that it owed Utopia, Utopia brought this action against Pro-
Med alleging claims of copyright infringement, breach of fiduciary duties, andbreach of contract. The district court granted Pro-Med summary judgment on
Utopia’s copyright infringement claim on the ground that ED Maximus was not
copyrightable, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Utopia’s
breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract claims that were based on state
law, dismissing them without prejudice.
Utopia appeals, arguing that the district court erred in finding that it did not hold a valid copyright in ED Maximus and abused its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Pro-Med crossappeals the dismissal of some of Utopia’s breach of contract claims, contending that the district court should have found them preempted by federal copyright law. We affirm.
