By Owen Wengerd on Wednesday, January 06, 2010 12:38 AM

A settlement agreement was reached literally in the middle of the night before the trial was to start Tuesday morning. The settlement agreement is confidential, but there are some consequences of the agreement worth mentioning, and that I'm sure will be discussed in more detail over the coming weeks. The issue of Autodesk's attempt to trademark "DWG" must still be resolved by the US Patent and Trademark Office. I suspect that Autodesk was hoping to use the lawsuit to gain some new advantage in the trademark fight, but I think if anything they lost ground, so it will be interesting to see where the trademark fight goes.

By Owen Wengerd on Wednesday, December 23, 2009 9:05 PM

The Autodesk v. SolidWorks case has exploded into a flood of filings since October, and I've been utterly unable to keep this site up to date. I have not yet decided whether to try to catch up by skipping the hundreds of essentially useless docket events (dozens of which are redacted or sealed), or just abandon it entirely. With sites like Groklaw gaining traction and popularity, I have less motivation and it unfortunately becomes more and more difficult to justify the time and expense of keeping this site updated. In the meantime, for those of you wishing to get an update on where things currently stand, Rebecca Tushnet has posted an analysis of this case on her 43(B)log.

By Owen Wengerd on Thursday, October 01, 2009 2:37 PM

The judge ruled for Vernor in a final summary judgement issued today. There is a lengthy examination of the facts in yesterday's ruling on some of the claims and counter claims, followed today by a short and sweet final adjudication that ends with "The court declares that Plaintiff’s sales of Defendant’s copyrighted AutoCAD software do not violate the Copyright Act to the extent Plaintiff acquired them in the manner described in the order. Defendant is hereby enjoined from asserting its rights under the Copyright Act as a basis for preventing or otherwise hindering Plaintiff’s sales of AutoCAD software."

By Owen Wengerd on Wednesday, September 23, 2009 2:04 AM

It's ostensibly just a small skirmish on the flank, but one can't help but be morbidly fascinated after reading the docket history of the battle between Autodesk and Open Design Alliance that took place in a Phoenix court this month. Autodesk essentially got what they wanted, and in the end ODA isn't much worse off than when they started - but there is a lot of drama packed into this short detour.

One can sense pandemonium in the ODA camp as court ordered deadlines loomed. On September 15, they submitted documents with missing attachments, then resubmitted with one correct and one incorrect attachment, then finally resubmitted again, only to get their wrists slapped for filing documents that they did not have permission to file in the first place. One wonders if the outcome might have been different were it not for "the abusive length of the motion for protective order" that the judge poignantly derides in his o ... Read More »

By Owen Wengerd on Monday, August 17, 2009 1:34 PM

Judge Alsup chose Autodesk's proposed language in an order settling the recent discovery dispute between Autodesk and SolidWorks.

By Owen Wengerd on Sunday, August 02, 2009 9:02 PM

In a June 23 hearing, Autodesk and SolidWorks attorneys argued over exactly which documents SolidWorks must provide to Autodesk. The judge issued verbal instructions, which the parties were to incorporate into a proposed order. The proposed order has now been submitted to the judge, but they still can't agree on the language. Interestingly, the proposed order includes the complete hearing transcript as an attachment, even though the transcript was not supposed to be released until September 21 under court guidelines.

By Owen Wengerd on Tuesday, July 07, 2009 2:39 PM

Autodesk and SolidWorks are fighting over the production of documents in the discovery process (see 44 and 46). Both parties have asked the court to intercede. A hearing was held on June 26, but a transcript of the hearing will not be available via the internet until September 21. The recent announcement that ODA has been subpoenaed indicates that Autodesk was at least partially successful in the hearing.

By Owen Wengerd on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 7:29 PM

In last week's filings, Tim Vernor asked the court to grant summary judgement so that he can sell his remaining copies of AutoCAD without interference from Autodesk. If you're not familiar with the facts in this case, Vernor's motion provides an excellent (and of course biased) historical overview. This motion will be followed by replies in opposition from both parties, with the process currently scheduled to be completed by March 27.

By Owen Wengerd on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 5:59 PM

In a recent request for an extension of time, Autodesk and SolidWorks revealed that during court ordered mediation on February 26 they "made significant progress towards settlement and are in the process of drafting and negotiating a settlement agreement." The judge denied the extension request, which forced Autodesk to respond to SolidWorks' counterclaims despite the ongoing settlement negotiations.

By Owen Wengerd on Saturday, February 21, 2009 12:52 AM

Autodesk unleashed a major barrage today in its ongoing lawsuit with Ebay seller Timothy Vernor. After settling some of Vernor's claims, Autodesk is turning its attention to the remaining issue of whether or not the sale of AutoCAD is actually a sale or a license. The final resolution of this question could send shockwaves through the entire software industry, so it's not surprising that Autodesk brought out the big guns: a declaration in support of Autodesk by intellectual property law expert Raymond T. Nimmer. Today's filings raise the stakes in this battle, so it will be interesting to see how Vernor responds.