Docket Activity

Vernor Petitions Court For Summary Judgement

owenw@manusoft.com — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 00:29:00 GMT

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.

Autodesk, SolidWorks Negotiating Settlement Agreement

owenw@manusoft.com — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:59:00 GMT

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.

Vernor Lawsuit Heats Up

owenw@manusoft.com — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 05:52:00 GMT

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.

SolidWorks Bites Back

owenw@manusoft.com — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 05:27:00 GMT

In a response to Autodesk's amended complaint, SolidWorks denies Autodesk's claims and makes a series of counterclaims based on it's assertion that Autodesk is using the lawsuit and its marketing muscle to stifle competition.

Autodesk Amends Complaint

owenw@manusoft.com — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 16:38:00 GMT

Autodesk has filed an amended complaint against SolidWorks. The amended complaint is an attempt to address the problems identified by the recent order on SolidWorks' motion to dismiss. Autodesk has substantially rewritten many parts of the complaint. The trade dress infringement claims have been narrowed, but they still appear to lack clear definition.

Christmas for Lawyers

owenw@manusoft.com — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 16:52:00 GMT

Just in time for Christmas, SolidWorks got a little bit of what it asked for, but Autodesk still gets a chance to correct some of the deficiencies in its claims. The judge's order signals a long process ultimately headed for a jury trial now scheduled for January 11, 2010.

Autodesk, SolidWorks Lawyers Working Overtime

owenw@manusoft.com — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 03:03:00 GMT

In a recent flurry of filings, Autodesk attacks SolidWorks' motion to dismiss charges, and SolidWorks counters. The legal soap opera reads like a "he said, she said" schoolyard argument, except with more at stake. In my reading of the documents, I felt that Autodesk spent a lot of time straining at gnats in the weaker parts of its argument (perhaps intent on maximizing the defense costs -- unlike its approach in the Vernor case, where it chose to settle its weakest arguments). So far, SolidWorks appears to be up to the challenge.

One thing that struck me is that Autodesk still refuses to state what exactly is false in SolidWorks' advertising claims. One might read into Autodesk's failure to address this and a few other specific challenges raised by SolidWorks that they are not primarily interested in making the judge's job easier. It will be interesting to see how the judge reacts to this apparent haughtiness.

SolidWorks Wants Lawsuit Dismissed

owenw@manusoft.com — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:10:00 GMT

In a filing last week, DS SolidWorks argues for dismissal of Autodesk's lawsuit. The documents filed with this motion to dismiss are voluminous, and include extensive citations to other cases. This indicates that SolidWorks has decided to invest the necessary resources to defend themselves.

SolidWorks claims that Autodesk is using this lawsuit to "bludgeon" SolidWorks and to achieve the results it was unable to achieve via the US Patent and Trademark Office. Their basic argument is that Autodesk does not own the "DWG" and "real" marks, therefore it has no standing to claim injury from SolidWorks' use of those terms. With regard to Autodesk's claims of unfair business practices and false advertising, SolidWorks argues that Autodesk has not stated why the statements are false, and that in any case the statements in question are not actionable because they are mere "puffery" (a legal term of art for vague and subjective marketing statements).

It's interesting to note that SolidWorks uses Autodesk's own statements in the ODA lawsuit to support the argument for dismissal. For example, in their TRO filing during the ODA lawsuit, Autodesk admitted that the use of non-Autodesk .dwg files is "pervasive". SolidWorks also points out that Autodesk specifically disclaimed their right to "DWG" as a trademark when applying for other trademarks with "DWG" in their name.

I sense that Autodesk's strongest claim is the trade dress infringement claim regarding the so-called "orange rectangle", with the trademark infringement claim regarding the use of "AutoCAD" on SolidWorks' web site also a contender if this goes to a jury. I think there is a good possibility that the remaining claims will be settled or dismissed before it gets to the trial phase.

Autodesk, Vernor Settle "Second Claim"

owenw@manusoft.com — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 23:09:00 GMT

According to a proposed settlement order filed on Friday, Autodesk and Tim Vernor have agreed to settle Vernor's "Second Claim" for unfair and deceptive practices. In the settlement, Vernor agrees to drop his demand for a declaratory judgement that Autodesk has no right to interfere with Vernor's sale of Autodesk software, and his demand for an injunction prohibiting Autodesk from further interference. In exchange, Autodesk agrees to pay actual and punitive damages, attorney's fees, and "such other relief as the Court finds appropriate".

Essentially Vernor got everything he wanted, as the court's previous order denying Autodesk's motion to dismiss is almost as good as an injunction. By settling this secondary claim for a relatively small amount, Autodesk can now focus its resources on the more important and far-reaching remaining issues regarding whether the software is sold or licensed, and hence whether the first sale doctrine applies.

New Presiding Judge in Autodesk v. SolidWorks

owenw@manusoft.com — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:26:00 GMT

In an October 13 filing, DS SolidWorks exercised their right to have the case heard by a federal judge instead of a magistrate judge. Yesterday, the case was reassigned to Judge Willian H. Alsup.