No, the U.S. court's decision doesn't stop the French lawsuit from going forward. The court explained that you can't use the 'double jeopardy' rule for civil cases (called 'res judicata') here for two big reasons. First, the French lawsuit was about selling the software in France, which might have happened *after* the U.S. lawsuit was already filed. You can't be stopped from suing over bad things that happened after the first case began. Second, the U.S. court had no power over the French company FASTER, which was a main party in the French case. It's not fair to say the case should have been brought in a court that couldn't have handled it properly. Also, the legal issue wasn't identical, because U.S. copyright law and French copyright law are different, so another legal rule (collateral estoppel) didn't apply either.

The U.S. case doesn't stop the French case from happening. This is because: 
1) The French case is about things that happened after the U.S. case started. 
2) The New York court didn't have the power to make decisions about FASTER.
Computer Associates didn't have to change its U.S. complaint to include the French copyright issue. 
The French and U.S. copyright rules might be different. 
Stopping the French case isn't necessary to protect what the U.S. court decided, since the cases are about different copyrights.

"The burden is on the party seeking to invoke res judicata to prove that the doctrine bars the second action."

"[T] he facts essential to the barred second suit need not be the same as the facts that were necessary to the first suit. It is instead enough that `the facts essential to the second were [already] present in the first.'"

The party claiming res judicata bears the burden of proving that the second action is barred, and it is not "dispositive that the two proceedings involved the same parties, similar or overlapping facts, and similar legal issues."

—refusing to grant antisuit injunction against pursuit of French copyright infringement action notwithstanding that the defendant's program had been held to be non-infringing in parallel US proceedings between the same parties involving the same works

But "issues are not identical when the legal standards governing their resolution are significantly different."

"According to all federal Circuit Courts of Appeal that have addressed this issue... claim preclusion is measured by claims that had accrued by the time of the original pleading in the earlier action

The res judicata doctrine does not apply to new rights acquired during the action which might have been, but were not, litigated

For the purposes of res judicata, `the scope of litigation is framed by the complaint at the time it is filed

If the long-arm statute is satisfied, the due process inquiry examines whether the foreign defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state.

Although a plaintiff may seek leave to file a supplemental pleading to assert a new claim based on actionable conduct which the defendant engaged in after a lawsuit is commenced, he is not required to do so

No, a final judgment in the U.S. copyright action does not preclude the subsequent action in France. The doctrines of res judicata (claim preclusion) and collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) do not bar Computer Associates from pursuing its French copyright claims. Res judicata does not apply for two independent reasons. First, Altai failed to prove that the conduct underlying the French action—the importation and distribution of OSCAR 3.5 in France—occurred before the U.S. action was filed. Claims arising from conduct that occurs after a lawsuit is initiated are not barred, and a plaintiff is not obligated to supplement their complaint to include them. Second, res judicata is inapplicable because a formal barrier existed: the U.S. district court lacked personal jurisdiction over FASTER, a principal defendant in the French action. FASTER, a French company distributing in France, had no minimum contacts with New York, making it unfair to preclude a claim that could not have been fully litigated in the first forum. Collateral estoppel also fails because the issues are not identical. For estoppel to apply, the legal standards governing the resolution must not be significantly different. Altai's superficial claim that U.S. and French copyright laws are similar is insufficient to prove the standards for copyrightability and infringement are identical.

The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel do not bar Computer Associates's French action because the conduct forming the basis of that action occurred after the U.S. action was filed, and the New York federal court lacked personal jurisdiction over FASTER, a principal party to the French suit. Res judicata does not apply to new rights acquired during an action which were not litigated. The scope of litigation is framed by the complaint at the time it is filed, and a plaintiff is not required to amend the complaint to add claims based on subsequent conduct. Additionally, the New York court could not have exercised jurisdiction over FASTER under New York's long-arm statute or the Due Process Clause, as FASTER lacked sufficient minimum contacts with New York. Collateral estoppel also does not apply because Altai failed to show the French and U.S. copyright standards are identical. Finally, enjoining the French action is not necessary to protect the U.S. court's jurisdiction or judgment, as the actions involve alleged violations of distinct U.S. and French copyrights.

Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot