[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
December 19, 2007
No. 07-12222 THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 05-00086-CV-WCO-2
ARMENTROUT ROEBUCK MATHENY
CONSULTING GROUP, P.C.,
a Georgia Corporation,
Plaintiff-Counter-
Defendant-Appellant,
versus
JACKSON COUNTY WATER AND SEWERAGE
AUTHORITY,
a Georgia Public Utility Authority,
PRIME ENGINEERING INCORPORATED,
a Georgia Corporation,
Defendants-Counter-
Claimant-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(December 19, 2007)
Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, WILSON, Circuit Judge, and MARTINEZ,*
District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Armentrout Roebuck Matheny Consulting Group, P.C., (“Armentrout”)
appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Jackson County
Water and Sewerage Authority and Prime Engineering, Inc. (together, the
“Defendants”). Finding that Armentrout granted the Defendants an implied license
to use its copyrighted materials, the district court granted summary judgment for
the Authority and Prime. We vacate and remand.
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, “applying
the same legal standards that bound the district court, and viewing all facts and
reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Cruz v.
Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 428 F.3d 1379, 1382 (11th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate where the record shows “that
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
Upon careful consideration and after the benefit of oral argument, we
conclude that a reasonable jury, weighing the factors discussed in Nelson-Salabes,
*
Honorable Jose E. Martinez, United States District Judge for the Southern District of
Florida, sitting by designation.
2
Inc. v. Morningside Dev., LLC, 284 F.3d 505, 516 (4th Cir. 2002), could find that
Armentrout did not grant the Defendants an implied license to use its copyrighted
materials.1 Therefore, as a genuine issue of material fact exists, summary
judgment was inappropriate. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of the Defendants and remand this case to the district
court for trial on the merits.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
1
For instance, the following facts lend support to the finding that Armentrout did not
intend to grant an implied license: (1) the parties were involved in an ongoing relationship, (2)
the contract restricted Jackson County’s ability to transfer all rights under the agreement without
Armentrout’s written consent, and (3) Armentrout placed copyright notices on its materials.
3