[PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-14071 ____________________

COMPULIFE SOFTWARE, INC, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, versus MOSES NEWMAN, AARON LEVY, BINYOMIN RUTSTEIN, DAVID RUTSTEIN, Defendants-Appellants, Cross-Appellees. USCA11 Case: 21-14071 Document: 103-1 Date Filed: 08/01/2024 Page: 2 of 29

2 Opinion of the Court 21-14071

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 9:16-cv-81942-BER ____________________

____________________

No. 21-14074 ____________________

COMPULIFE SOFTWARE, INC, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, versus BINYOMIN RUTSTEIN, DAVID RUTSTEIN, Defendants-Appellants, Cross-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 9:16-cv-80808-BER ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-14071 Document: 103-1 Date Filed: 08/01/2024 Page: 3 of 29

21-14071 Opinion of the Court 3

Before JORDAN, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges. BRASHER, Circuit Judge: We must once again consider an intellectual property dis- pute between Compulife and its competitors—defendants Moses Newman, Aaron Levy, Binyomin Rutstein, and Binyomin’s father, David Rutstein. Compulife created software to generate life insurance quotes. To create these quotes, the software relied on Compulife’s secret database of insurance rates. Compulife accuses the defend- ants of infringing on its copyright by copying the software’s code and using it for their own website. And it says that they stole its trade secret by acquiring portions of the database through im- proper means. In a previous appeal, we remanded for a trial on Compulife’s claims for copyright infringement and misappropria- tion of trade secrets. See Compulife Software Inc. v. Newman, 959 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2020) (Compulife I). After a bench trial, the district court ruled against Compulife on the former, but in favor of Compulife on the latter. All parties have appealed again. Their appeals raise three questions. First, did the district court err in concluding that Com- pulife’s competitors did not infringe on its copyright? We think that by failing to consider the copyrightability of the code’s arrange- ment, the district court erred. And, because of that error, we must reverse and remand for the district court to make new fact findings on the copyright claim. USCA11 Case: 21-14071 Document: 103-1 Date Filed: 08/01/2024 Page: 4 of 29

4 Opinion of the Court 21-14071