CaseTrail

Lotus Development Corporation v. Borland International, Inc.

516 U.S. 233 · Decided January 16, 1996 · Supreme Court of the United States

Record summary. This page is generated from the Supreme Court Database’s coded data about the case. It describes who decided what, not the Court’s reasoning. Read the opinion itself before relying on it. Not legal advice.

At a glance

Lotus Development Corporation v. Borland International, Inc. was decided on January 16, 1996 by a vote of 4–4. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision. The Justices were equally divided, which leaves the lower court's judgment in place without setting precedent. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Copyrights” in the Economic Activity area.

Read the opinion

Case details

Citations
516 U.S. 233 · 116 S. Ct. 804 · 133 L. Ed. 2d 610 · 1996 U.S. LEXIS 470
Docket number
94-2003
Decided
January 16, 1996
Argued
January 8, 1996
Decision type
Equally divided vote
Disposition
Affirmed
Outcome for petitioner
The petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition
Vote
4–4
How the case arrived
Certiorari
Issue (SCDB)
Copyrights
Decision direction (SCDB)
Liberal what this means

How the Justices voted

JusticeVoteSeparate writing
Chief Justice William H. RehnquistEqually divided vote
Justice Sandra Day O'ConnorEqually divided vote
Justice Antonin ScaliaEqually divided vote
Justice Anthony M. KennedyEqually divided vote
Justice David H. SouterEqually divided vote
Justice Clarence ThomasEqually divided vote
Justice Ruth Bader GinsburgEqually divided vote
Justice Stephen G. BreyerEqually divided vote

Did not participate: John Paul Stevens.

Full case caption

Lotus Development Corporation v. Borland International, Inc.

SCDB identifiers: case 1995-017, docket 1995-017-01.

Other cases on “Copyrights”

See all

Same Term, same area (Economic Activity)

See all

Source: Supreme Court Database, 2026 Release 01 (data file dated September 8, 2026). Imported into CaseTrail November 5, 2026. Coverage: decisions from the 1946 through 2025 Terms. Methodology · Report an error