CAMS v. CINC

DisputeSoft was engaged in July 2016 by plaintiff T&S Property Management, LLC in the matter of T&S Property Management, LLC v. CINC Systems, LLC in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Case No. 1:16-cv-01005-AT. Plaintiff T&S Property Management, LLC (“CAMS”) filed a motion for an injunction to prevent Defendant CINC Systems, LLC (“CINC”) from terminating CAMS’ access to CINC’s software after CAMS allegedly breached a license agreement that governed the use of software it had licensed from CINC. The allegedly breached license agreement prohibited CAMS from attempting to reverse-engineer or develop a competing product to the CINC software it had licensed. At the time of the alleged breach, CAMS was working with a third-party company, Vantaca, LLC, to develop a new customized software product to better suit CAMS’ business needs, which CINC allegedly incorporated into its intellectual property thereby violating the CINC software license agreement; specifically, CINC alleged that CAMS had reverse engineered or created a derivative work based on the CINC software.

DisputeSoft examined both the software that CAMS had developed with the assistance of Vantaca and the software it had licensed from CINC Systems for indicia of reverse-engineering or copying. Our experts used proprietary internal software and manually reviewed the source code of the two products. DisputeSoft also analyzed database schema elements of the CAMS-developed system for evidence of reverse-engineering or cop6ying.

DisputeSoft expert Josh Siegel concluded that the source code of the new CAMS system contained no evidence of reverse-engineering or copying of CINC’s software. Mr. Siegel performed the source code inspection and analysis on July 27, 2016 on a review computer in the offices of opposing counsel. On July 28, 2016, he proffered an oral description of his findings to counsel. The Plaintiff withdrew its motion for an injunction the very next day, July 29, 2016, as the parties finalized a formal settlement agreement. The case closed on September 6, 2016.

For a description of the services we provide as computer forensics experts, please click here.