Siemens Industry Software Inc. Lawsuits – Correcting Past Software Piracy.

Siemens Industry Software Inc. Piracy Lawsuit

If you are here, chances are you received an ISP Subpoena Notification that you are IMPLICATED as a “John Doe” defendant in a Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. John Does lawsuit. Now you want to know what to do.

Siemens Industry Software Inc. (“Siemens”) has been suing engineers for copyright infringement since 2016. Their most recent lawsuit is the Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Does 1-100 (Case No. 4:22-cv-00588) case, filed in February, 2022.

They act differently from other “copyright trolls” who only file lawsuits to extort settlement money from each defendant.

WALKTHROUGH: TABLE OF CONTENTS.

The purpose of this walk-through is to explain to you each topic that you as a Siemens defendant need to be aware of.

Click on the “Go to the Top” link to return to the list of topics below:

  1. Exactly what was the ISP subpoena notification letter that you received in the mail,
  2. Who is Siemens Industry Software Inc. and what do they want from you,
  3. What are your options now that Siemens has implicated you as a defendant in their copyright infringement / software piracy lawsuit,
  4. At what points in the lawsuit do you remain anonymous,
  5. How Siemens sorts each defendant into categories, and
  6. By analyzing which category you fit into, you’ll understand how to resolve the claims against you.
  7. When to hire an attorney, and
  8. How to hire an attorney,

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

1. WHAT WAS THE ISP SUBPOENA NOTIFICATION LETTER THAT I RECEIVED IN THE MAIL?

You received the ISP subpoena notification letter informing you that you are a “John Doe” defendant simply because you are the you are the subscriber on the ISP account.

In their most recent lawsuit, Siemens Industry Software Inc. sued 142 defendants who were “observed” using pirated copies of their copyrighted software without a license.

In theory, plaintiffs are supposed to sue people, not IP addresses, “because an IP address is not a person.” In practice, since they do not yet know who you are, they sue a “John Doe” placeholder, and initially implicate the account holder as being that John Doe Defendant.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

Go to the Top:

2. WHO IS “SIEMENS INDUSTRY SOFTWARE INC.” AND WHAT DO THEY WANT FROM ME?

Siemens Industry Software Inc. develops and sells software. Their software is significantly more expensive than the ordinary piece of software. Typical software products can cost from several thousands of dollars to over $30,000 for one software product.

The problem for Siemens is that their software products have been leaked onto the internet and cracked (meaning, they run without a valid code). This has hurt them financially, and since 2016, they have filed multiple lawsuits to identity each internet user who has used their software so that they can be “made whole” [reimbursed] for the unlawful use of their software.

Siemens INTENDS to sue only engineers who used their software without a license. But Siemens only knows the IP address that was assigned to the account holder’s internet account when the software was used. As a result, often the wives or spouses of the engineers end up getting implicated as the John Doe instead of the engineer.

As a “John Doe” placeholder defendant sued for copyright infringement [which carries statutory damages of $150,000 per instance of infringement], once the Siemens Industry Software Inc. attorneys at Reed Smith LLP learns your identity, their job is to identify who in the family is the engineer, and exactly how [for what purpose] he or she made use of the pirated software.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

Go to the Top:

3. WHAT ARE MY OPTIONS NOW THAT I HAVE IMPLICATED AS A “JOHN DOE” DEFENDANT?

You have three options now that you have been implicated as a “John Doe” Defendant:

Option 1: Litigation (the extreme response that you will likely not take until you are named and served as a defendant).

Option 1) File an answer with the court and proceed with litigation.

After you file an answer with the court, you will probably end up answering questions under oath (via an interrogatory) or showing up at a deposition (to answer questions in person under oath).

This deposition is where they would take your testimony to prove whether [or not] it was you who used Siemens’ copyrighted software without a license.

Siemens would be looking to get testimony NOT from the John Doe account holders (who is often the spouse of the engineer who used their software), but from the engineer him or herself.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

If nobody in your household used Siemens Industry Software, then simply hiring an attorney to explain to them the circumstances could resolve the claims against you without litigation or testimony under oath.

If you are the spouse called in to testify, and [in your testimony,] you indicate that someone else used Siemens’ software (e.g., a family member, a spouse, etc.), the plaintiff attorney will amend the complaint and add the person they believe actually used the software.

If they amend the complaint, (your family member, spouse, etc.) would need to be served, and they would need to file an answer with the court and answer questions under oath, just as you did.

I am simplifying the litigation process, but the reason I described the process to demonstrate that if you did not use their copyrighted software (if it was not you), then you do not need to worry about litigation in a copyright infringement lawsuit.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

CAVEAT: If litigating, don’t forget that this is a COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT lawsuit.

BE AWARE THAT IF YOU LITIGATE THE CASE, YOUR ARGUMENT IS:

  1. SIEMENS INDUSTRY SOFTWARE INC. DID NOT HAVE A VALID COPYRIGHT WHEN YOU ALLEGEDLY USED THE SOFTWARE,
  2. YOU DID NOT VIOLATE SIEMENS’ COPYRIGHT RIGHTS, OR
  3. YOUR USE OF THEIR SOFTWARE WAS EXEMPTED FROM LIABILITY BECAUSE OF “FAIR USE” RULES.

I am saying this again for effect: “In every single circumstance, if you litigate the claims against you, you are arguing whether or not they own a valid copyright, whether you infringed their copyright if you used their software, and whether your use was permitted under the copyright laws.”

This might sound funny, but it also must be said: …If you decide to “fight” (to litigate the claims against you), you are not arguing whether their settlement offer asking you to enter into a software license to buy a particular piece of software was too expensive or not.

NOTE: If you believe your family member used their software without a license (e.g., if your 18+ engineering student child was home from college, and without your knowledge he used the pirated software while his laptop was connected to your internet account), there are ways to resolve the claims without him or you purchasing expensive software because he is a potential future paying client of Siemens Industry Software, Inc.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

Option 2: Negotiate a Software License to purchase Siemens Industry Software.

Option 2) Become a legitimate customer by having your attorney negotiate a software license to purchase (possibly a lower cost) piece of software.

If you are concerned that through the simple legal process described above (litigation) that you will admit guilt to copyright infringement, then you will be hiring an attorney to negotiate a settlement of the claims against you.

Unlike many other copyright infringement lawsuits, the “settlement” here is not a sum of money as a lump sum payment. Rather, the “settlement” in a Siemens Industry Software Inc. lawsuit is the purchase of their software.

It is reasonable that the NX or Solid Edge Siemens Industry software products that you used do not fit your needs. For example, perhaps you used a feature-rich version of their NX software (e.g.,. “Mach 3”) but you only would make use of some of the features, e.g., of the “Mach 1” NX software (“Mach 1” software is many thousands of dollars less than “Mach 3” software), your attorney could push to have Siemens allow you to purchase the lower cost software… or another piece of software altogether.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

Option 3: Filing an “opposition” with the court, also known as a “motion to quash” to prevent your ISP from handing over your contact information.

Option 3) The logic in filing a “motion to quash” is that IF you are successful in preventing the plaintiff attorney from knowing WHO YOU ARE, then they cannot sue you.

By filing a “motion to quash,” you are trying to relieve your ISP from a judge’s order which instructed it to share your contact information with the Siemens Industry Software Inc.’s Reed Smith LLP attorneys.

Filing a “motion to quash” tells the court that the subpoena issued to your ISP is defective because the federal court that authorized the subpoena does not have “personal jurisdiction” over you.

For example, if you live outside of the state in which you were sued, you could file a motion to quash the subpoena by demonstrating to the court that it has no personal jurisdiction over you. Rather, if the plaintiff attorney wishes to sue you, they could sue you in the federal court of the home state in which you live.

Many of you in this lawsuit do not live in Texas where this Siemens Industry Software Inc. lawsuit was filed. In theory, you could file a motion to quash and force the Reed Smith LLP Siemens attorneys to sue you in your home state.

Unfortunately, filing a motion to quash is a failed tactic which out-of-state attorneys have attempted in the past (and still market to their potential clients as a viable option. It is not).

The first problem with a motion to quash is you are not yet a “named and served defendant,” but rather a mere “John Doe” placeholder. Thus the plaintiff attorney will argue that you do not yet have legal “standing” to file a motion to quash.

The second problem with motions to quash is that if you are successful, the plaintiff attorney can [through his laptop] easily re-file the lawsuit in your home state’s federal court [undoing your efforts and the thousands of dollars you just paid to your attorney to file the motion to quash].

If you file a motion to quash and you are successful, the judge will SEVER AND DISMISS your John Doe entity from the lawsuit. You will no longer be joined with 149 other defendants who would share your “Joint and Several” liability if this ever went to trial. Instead, the lawsuit would be:

Siemens Industry Software, Inc. v. YOU. (Only you. And, you would be litigating a COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT lawsuit, as I described above.)

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

Go to the Top:

4. UNTIL WHEN AM I ANONYMOUS?

When the lawsuit is filed, the Siemens attorneys do not know your identity. You are 100% anonymous.

Assuming that you (the account holder) will not file a motion to quash for the reasons we discussed above, the ISP will be under a duty to comply with the subpoena. They will comply by sharing the account information of the subscriber that was assigned the IP address on the date and time when the pirated software was used.

Generally, ISPs give their account holders 30 days before they comply with the subpoena.

Once the 30 days elapses (or whatever deadline is provided by the ISP subpoena notification letter), they will share the account subscriber’s information with the Siemens plaintiff attorney at Reed Smith LLP who sued you.

Once the ISP complies with the subpoena and shares your contact information with the plaintiff attorney, the plaintiff attorney learns who you are (and where you live).

After the ISP complies with the subpoena, you are no longer anonymous because the plaintiff attorney knows who you are.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

However, even though the plaintiff attorney knows who you are, there is no mention of your name on the court’s docket… not even the judge or anyone else in the world knows who you are or that you are involved in this lawsuit. Thus, aside from the plaintiff attorney knowing who you are, you are still anonymous.

The plaintiff attorney has 90 days from the date he filed the lawsuit to name and serve you as a defendant. During this time, he will sort you into a particular category of defendants, and your involvement in the lawsuit will continue (or it will be resolved based upon which category you fall into).

Once the plaintiff’s 90 day deadline to name and serve defendants has elapsed (the plaintiff attorney can ask the judge to extend this deadline multiple times), to avoid having the judge dismiss the case, the plaintiff attorney must at some point amend the complaint in the lawsuit and name and serve the defendant.

Amending the complaint changes your status from an anonymous “John Doe” [placeholder] to your real name. At this point, you are no longer anonymous and the world knows who you are because your name is written on the court’s docket as being a defendant of this copyright infringement lawsuit.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

Go to the Top:

5. HOW SIEMENS SORTS YOU INTO CATEGORIES.

Once the Siemens Industry Software Inc. attorneys learn your identity, they will search for the engineer in the household.

When they identify who is the most likely individual using their copyrighted software without a license, they will then try to determine how you used their software and for what purpose.

They will search for engineering companies you might own (commercial use of their software), they will search to see whether you are working for an employer or on a project where you are licensed (or “under-licensed,” meaning multiple engineers share the same software license), or they will see if you used the software as a tinkerer (non-commercial use).

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

Go to the Top:

6. ANALYZE WHICH CATEGORY YOU FIT INTO IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND HOW SIEMENS WILL ALLOW YOU TO RESOLVE THE CLAIMS AGAINST YOU.

I am simplifying and this is not a rule, but these are my observations of the “unofficial” categories Siemens uses to classify John Doe defendants in their lawsuits:

CATEGORY 1: COMMERCIAL USE

COMMERCIAL USE: If you are using the software for commercial purposes (e.g., billing clients for work you did on unlicensed software), then Siemens will require that you purchase a legitimate copy (sometimes two copies) of the software. This could cost $30,000-$60,000 USD.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

CATEGORY 2: “UNDER-LICENSED” AT WORK

“UNDER-LICENSED” AT WORK: If you are working for a company who is purchasing licenses or “seats” for his engineers, but there are more engineers working under one license than is permitted, Siemens Industry Software Inc.’s licensing department (through Lorena Rubalcava) will be helping your employer legitimately license you and your peers.

The way Siemens would figure out that there is “under-licensing” is probably because you and your peers would take work home. Instead of using a company laptop, you would use a pirated version of the software to complete your work at home. Chances are, other people in your company would also be sued in this same lawsuit.

Our job would not be to negotiate a software license for you to buy a license yourself, but rather, to cooperate with Siemens Industry Software Inc. to allow their licensing department and attorneys to help make your employer compliant with the license agreements he agreed to (ideally, without identifying you as being the one who was caught using the pirated software). That way, when you do work from home, you will be properly licensed.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

CATEGORY 3: “TINKERERS.”

“TINKERERS”: “Tinkerers” used to be my favorite category of defendants. Engineers by nature are a creative bunch, and based on my Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s patent practice (I am a licensed patent attorney in addition to my last ten years of experience in federal court litigation), their ability to apply one set of skills to an unrelated area of practice often astounds me.

Tinkerers often use the Siemens NX software for design and 3D printer applications, robotics, and more ingenious uses than you care to read about here. 99% of their activity is usually meant to be non-revenue producing. Also included in this category are engineers who use the software for TRAINING PURPOSES ONLY — hoping to become proficient at the software so that they will one day soon be able to use it for revenue-producing activities.

For many years, Siemens did not require tinkerers to purchase the software because their activities were non-revenue producing. In recent lawsuits, however, this changed. That being said, “tinkerers” did not need to shell out $30,000 for a Mach 3 NX piece of software, especially when a significantly lower-cost software would have achieved the same application or outcome for which they were using the more expensive software. These software purchase and licensing negotiations are all an anticipated part of every Siemens lawsuit representation, although based on our experience, in some circumstances, Siemens has not asked for a software purchase.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

STUDENTS / LOW INCOME DEFENDANTS.

STUDENTS / LOW INCOME DEFENDANTS: This is not an official category (none of these are), but as a general rule, because Siemens Industry Software Inc. understands that today’s engineering students will become tomorrow’s lifelong customer, they are willing to make alternate arrangements, many of which do not include buying their software at all.

As far as low income defendants, again, this is not a category, but I am mentioning it because Siemens considers it when asking a defendant in the other categories to purchase software. In many software products, there are expensive tiers and there are lower cost tiers. There are also lower cost software products. If your income is low or non-existent, this is something that we could speak to the Siemens attorneys on your behalf.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

Go to the Top:

7. WHEN TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY

The best time to hire an attorney is WHILE YOU ARE STILL A “JOHN DOE” *AND* WHILE YOU ARE STILL ANONYMOUS.

Once the plaintiff attorney learns who you are, unless you are represented by an attorney, he will initiate his investigation as to whether you downloaded, streamed, or viewed the copyrighted video or movie.

To avoid the plaintiff attempting to contact you, before he learns who you are [from your ISP], you should hire an attorney to represent you.

This means that you should hire an attorney before your ISP shares your contact information with the plaintiff attorney.

When you retain us as your attorney, we will send over a LETTER OF REPRESENTATION to the plaintiff attorney. This is a legal document that places him “on notice” that you are represented by an attorney. Thus, all communications — all phone calls, all letters, all attempts to secure documentation, data, evidence, etc. all must go through me (the attorney).

The LETTER OF REPRESENTATION should be sent to the plaintiff attorney before the ISP shares your information with the plaintiff attorney (while you are still anonymous).

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

Go to the Top:

[You can still hire an attorney after the plaintiff attorney knows who you are (or even after you are named and served as a defendant), but up to the point that you retain us, we cannot control the flow of information and the communications or inadvertent admissions of guilt that might have occurred.]

8. HOW DO I HIRE YOU AS MY ATTORNEY?

To hire me as your attorney, schedule a phone consultation so that we can speak about your case. I will happily answer any questions you still have. We will also speak about how much we cost, and I will provide you an estimate of how much it will cost you based on how you want to proceed.

For our phone consultation:

I do not charge for the phone consultation, but I do ask that you respect my time constraints.

There is NO EXPECTATION that you will be a client of mine once we speak (I do not take every person I speak to as a client).

My ONLY goal is to give you exactly the answers you need (which are not always the answers you want).

I have nothing wrong with giving you answers that you don’t like, even if that causes you to decide not to retain our law firm’s services. I prefer that if and when you retain me, you know exactly what you are agreeing to, and that you know [as much as possible] the outcome we will be achieving on your behalf.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

What if all of your appointments are booked before the ISP needs to share my information?

If you cannot get an immediate appointment with our law firm:

  1. Schedule the earliest appointment possible on our calendar. Then,
  2. Send me an e-mail — [email protected].
  3. a) Let me know that you have a deadline [that your ISP will be sharing your information before you could find an available time slot for us to speak].
    b) Let me know what dates and times you can take my call.
    c) Let me know that you would like to move your scheduled phone consultation to as early a time as possible.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

Go to the Top:

Can I tell you about my circumstances before setting up the free phone consultation?

YES. Before setting up an appointment, if you want to contact me first to tell me about your particular circumstances, you can:

1) Send me an e-mail at [email protected],

2) Fill out a form on any page of our website (I see, read, and respond to each one of these), or

    3) Send a text message to 713-364-3476. This is our law firm’s phone number, but it also works to receive text messages (obviously let me know who you are when you send me a text message).

    VOICEMAILS: With these lawsuits, I often get too many phone calls at a time for it to be efficient to answer each call. End result: many calls will go into voicemail.

    Because sometimes 100+ individuals will call in a week, I DO NOT WANT YOU TO LEAVE A VOICEMAIL because it might be days before I even see it. (BUT I see e-mails and contact forms immediately as soon as they are sent).

    Thus, instead of leaving a voicemail, please send me an e-mail at [email protected], or set up a time for us to speak.

    Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

    NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything incriminating about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

    Go to the Top:

    Cashman Law Firm, PLLC | Logo


    10101 Fondren Road, Suite 452, Houston, TX 77096
    Tel: 713-364-3476
    Fax: 281-764-8744
    info [at] cashmanlawfirm.com

    © 2017-2022 by Cashman Law Firm, PLLC.
    All Rights Reserved.

    Siemens Industry Software Inc. Software Lawsuits. All You Need to Know In One Page.

    Siemens Industry Software Inc. Piracy Lawsuit

    SIEMENS INDUSTRY SOFTWARE INC. — SOFTWARE LAWSUITS: WAVE 10 (early 2022).

    Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Does 1-100 (4:22-cv-00588), is the subject of a new wave of Siemens Industry Software Inc. software piracy / copyright infringement lawsuits filed in the Southern District of Texas.

    I’ve already written all that needs to be known about the Siemens Industry Software Inc. lawsuits (see articles, below), but if you want a quick summary of what happened in the previous “waves” of the Siemens Industry Software Inc. piracy lawsuits, click here.

    However, the first question you might have when you receive a subpoena from your Charter Communications ISP is, “how do I file an objection with the court to stop them from revealing my contact information to the Siemens plaintiff attorneys?”  In other words, “how do I file a motion to quash the subpoena I just received?

    This might be the best article you can read on Motions to Quash.  The subject of the article deals with those who download movies via bittorrent, however, the subject covered in this article is VERY RELEVANT to your Siemens Industry Software Inc. software copyright infringement case.

    Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

    Screenshot from Siemens PLM Software's website on the NX Mach 3 software.

    Here is what you need to know about the Siemens Industry Software Inc. NX lawsuits:

    1) The plaintiff attorneys Robert Reinaldo Riddle and Katherine Geldmacher of Reed Smith LLP are still involved in these lawsuits [James Quail is no longer with their law firm, and I have not seen Andrew Bluebond in recent filings].  Each of these attorneys continue to be genuine in their skills and are capable of taking these cases to trial.

    2) Siemens Industry Software Inc. is interested in turning those who used their software unlawfully into paying customers.

    3) Siemens is not a “copyright troll” looking to extort quick settlements from their lawsuits (although the topic of settlements was considered by Siemens Industry Software Inc. in their last set of lawsuits).  Rather, to settle a Siemens case, be prepared that they will be asking you for ~$30,000 per license.

    4) John Doe Defendants in these lawsuits got caught NOT downloading the software (e.g., with bittorrent), but by the unlawful USE of their software.

    5) Siemens Industry Software Inc. and their attorneys at Reed Smith LLP are willing to follow the infringement from your own infringement to the company you work for (to see whether they have proper software licenses “seats” for the software products they are using).

    6) The most effective representation is through an attorney who — guilty or not — allows you to keep an open line of communication with the plaintiff attorneys.  Remember, they are looking to sell licenses (and in any sales circumstance, prices can be negotiated by your attorney).

    Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

    WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW (THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN RESEARCHED):

    SIEMENS INDUSTRY SOFTWARE, INC. (“SIEMENS SOFTWARE LAWSUIT”)

    Also read the following few articles I have written on their lawsuits:
    Siemens Industry Software Inc. NX-based lawsuits – converting accused engineers into loyal customers, on 1/9/2017.

    Software Developers are now tracking piracy through the USE of downloaded software, on 9/9/2016.

    Siemens Industry Software Case IS a Bittorrent Case, on 6/20/2017.

    What to do about the Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Does case (TX), on 1/16/2016.

    Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

    What happened to their older lawsuits?

    In Waves 1-8, Siemens solicited licenses for the various versions of their NX & Solid Edge software (and in the most recent lawsuit, other Siemens Industry Software Inc. software titles were included).  In Wave 1 (and in subsequent waves) they dismissed the lawsuit, and filed individual copyright infringement lawsuits against companies they discovered were using their software without a license.

    In Wave 2 (2016), Siemens filed a similar lawsuit, this time against 100 new defendants.  They surprised a number of defendants with settlement numbers of $50,000+ (eventually, we learned that they were settling licenses to their software, and they actually cost that much).  This second wave lawsuit “on the books” looked to be a failure because they missed a FRCP Rule 4(m) deadline to name and serve defendants.  As a result, they dismissed the entire lawsuit, however, I know that they continued after the dismissal to contact accused defendants (or their attorneys) with the intention of having those accused defendants [now dismissed] purchase a license to cover their use of the Siemens Industry Software Inc. NX software.

    In Wave 3 – 5 (2017-2018), they repeated what was a successful strategy in the previous lawsuits.  They spent their time looking for individuals who used pirated versions of their software for profit.  In these waves, Siemens Industry Software Inc. considered asking defendants for large settlements, however, to date this has not materialized and they continue to attempt to legitimize their accused defendants to become lifelong customers through the sale of licenses to their software.

    In Wave 6-7 (2019), Siemens Industry Software Inc. changed their strategy, attempting to streamline the settlement process.  They still analyzed each defendant to determine whether they were a) running their own engineering business (and billing clients using the pirated software), or whether they were b) employees or independent contractors working on a project where their employer did not properly license them.  They also analyzed whether the engineer was c) what we call a “tinkerer,” although the way Siemens handled this category changed.

    In previous lawsuits, those that used the software for “hobby” purposes (e.g., 3D printing, designing private home uses, etc.) were considered “tinkerers.”  Many of these engineers knew how to use the software from work (where they were properly licensed).  Others used the software for training purposes only (for the purpose of one day getting a job where they would need to use that software).  Because their use was formerly considered “non-revenue producing,” Siemens did not require them to obtain a software license.

    IN WAVES 6 AND 7, *THIS CHANGED*.  In the most recent set of cases, Siemens Industry Software Inc. still asked defendants to buy software from them to legitimize their use.  It did not necessarily need to be the same $30,000 NX software they used prior to being sued, but lesser versions with fewer features, or altogether other software packages [at a steep discount] were presented as options.

    IN WAVE 8 (2020), there were two lawsuits; one had 150 John Doe Defendants, and the other had only 10 John Doe Defendants.  It was never made known whether these 150 John Doe Defendants were from the same pool as the earlier lawsuits were filed, or whether these were from an entirely new pool of accused infringers.  I suspect that the 150 defendants in the (4:20-cv-00798) case were all new defendants, and that 10 defendants in the (4:20-cv-00801) case were old defendants who did not settle the claims against them.

    WAVE 9 (2021) followed the same trends as WAVE 8 (2020). The only difference is that the “tinkerer” category seemed to become relevant again. This does not mean that they did not ask defendants to purchase a piece of Siemens software (they did); however, their focus appeared to be on the engineers who were using their software in their own businesses for profit.

    NOW WE ARE IN WAVE 10 (2022) *NEW INFORMATION* Siemens has sued 100 “John Doe” defendants in the Texas federal court (Case No. 4:22-cv-00588), and my best guess is that the John Doe Defendants will be spread across the US. They appear to be continuing their strategy of suing engineers for the unlawful use of their software, but their list of software titles has expanded.

    I am writing this article with updates as of April, 2022. The docket, however, does not look like it will have any activity until their initial pretrial conference which will happen in August, 2022. Thus, you as the accused defendant may not learn that you are part of this lawsuit until September, 2022 and onward.

    02/24/20226 ORDER for Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference and Order to Disclose Interested Persons. Initial Conference set for 8/23/2022 at 10:20 AM in Courtroom 700 before Magistrate Judge Sam S Sheldon. (Signed by Judge Andrew S Hanen) Parties notified.(ltien, 4) (Entered: 02/24/2022)

    As I learn more, I will update this article.

    As always, here is how an attorney should be handling a Siemens Industry Software Inc. software lawsuit, and how we at the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC would handle your Siemens Industry Software Inc. case.

    Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >


    [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Siemens Industry Software Inc. copyright case and options on how to proceed (even specifically for your circumstances), you can e-mail us at [email protected], you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your Siemens Industry Software Inc. case, or you can SMS / call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number) ].

    CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

      NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

      STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS – LIST OF CASES BY STATE (MARCH 2022)

      Strike 3 Holdings List of Cases strike-3-holdings-march-2022-lawsuits

      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed roughly 180 copyright infringement lawsuits in federal courts (US District Courts) across the US in the last month. They appear to have focused their lawsuits on the US District Courts in the states of California, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Texas. As often as it is useful, I will be listing the Strike Holdings cases which are filed in each state.

      OBSERVATION #1: END-OF-MONTH FLOODING OF CASES

      After writing the “Strike 3 Holdings – List of Cases by State (January 2022)” article on 1/23, I was pretty sure I covered most of what would be their filings for the month.

      To my surprise, after my article Strike 3 Holdings, LLC then went on to flood the federal court system with an additional 140+ cases, just as January was coming to a close.

      Arrows Success Direction Goal  - geralt / Pixabay
      geralt / Pixabay

      If you want to see the actual end-of-January Strike 3 Holdings LLC filings, I am pasting them below:

      STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC FILINGS - END-OF-JANUARY 2022

      The Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases filed towards the end-of-January 2022 can be found below. I have separated these cases by court.

      CALIFORNIA STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (END-OF-JANUARY 2022)

      Strike 3 Holdings California Central District Court

      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.53.22.13 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00521)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.217.76.56 (Case No. 8:22-cv-00124)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 162.196.82.174 (Case No. 8:22-cv-00119)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.5.191.103 (Case No. 8:22-cv-00121)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.5.35.134 (Case No. 8:22-cv-00122)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 70.142.213.207 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00522)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 70.181.104.210 (Case No. 8:22-cv-00123)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 72.194.100.227 (Case No. 8:22-cv-00120)

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      Strike 3 Holdings California Eastern District Court

      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.220.95.191 (Case No. 2:22-at-00091)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.220.95.191 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00156)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.7.147.39 (Case No. 2:22-at-00098)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.7.147.39 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00164)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.180.44.4 (Case No. 2:22-at-00097)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.180.44.4 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00163)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.181.236.194 (Case No. 2:22-at-00096)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.181.236.194 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00162)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.116.39.8 (Case No. 2:22-at-00093)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.116.39.8 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00158)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.12.140.117 (Case No. 2:22-at-00099)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.12.140.117 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00165)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.220.92.37 (Case No. 2:22-at-00092)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.220.92.37 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00157)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.71.33.204 (Case No. 2:22-at-00095)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.71.33.204 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00161)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.90.90.126 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00153)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.192.170.147 (Case No. 2:22-at-00094)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.192.170.147 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00159)

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      Strike 3 Holdings California Northern District Court

      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.3.165.156 (Case No. 4:22-cv-00597)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.3.165.156 (Case No. 5:22-cv-00597)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.233.87.84 (Case No. 3:22-cv-00560)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 136.24.32.55 (Case No. 3:22-cv-00558)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 162.207.205.59 (Case No. 4:22-cv-00515)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 162.207.205.59 (Case No. 5:22-cv-00515)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 162.225.123.253 (Case No. 3:22-cv-00556)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 162.228.89.50 (Case No. 3:22-cv-00522)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 162.228.89.50 (Case No. 4:22-cv-00522)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 162.229.189.101 (Case No. 5:22-cv-00511)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.5.135.34 (Case No. 3:22-cv-00509)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.5.135.34 (Case No. 4:22-cv-00509)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.169.136.40 (Case No. 3:22-cv-00591)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.169.136.40 (Case No. 5:22-cv-00591)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.180.98.54 (Case No. 3:22-cv-00508)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.180.98.54 (Case No. 4:22-cv-00508)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.188.214.31 (Case No. 4:22-cv-00593)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.188.214.31 (Case No. 5:22-cv-00593)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.188.229.244 (Case No. 3:22-cv-00553)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.181.67.62 (Case No. 5:22-cv-00563)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.204.173.125 (Case No. 3:22-cv-00526)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.158.228.44 (Case No. 4:22-cv-00505)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.162.177.189 (Case No. 5:22-cv-00564)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.170.122.168 (Case No. 3:22-cv-00603)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.25.112.180 (Case No. 3:22-cv-00520)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.37.14.239 (Case No. 3:22-cv-00517)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.37.48.5 (Case No. 5:22-cv-00565)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.42.128.88 (Case No. 3:22-cv-00557)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.47.62.67 (Case No. 5:22-cv-00602)

      Strike 3 Holdings California Southern District Court

      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 3:22-cv-00121, 3:22-cv-00123, 3:22-cv-00124, 3:22-cv-00126, 3:22-cv-00127, and 3:22-cv-00133)

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      CONNECTICUT STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (END-OF-JANUARY 2022)

      Strike 3 Holdings Connecticut District Court

      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 3:22-cv-00158, 3:22-cv-00159, 3:22-cv-00160, 3:22-cv-00161, and 3:22-cv-00162)

      …These are newer cases, and the judge has not yet been assigned for these. I’m guessing Jackie James will be the plaintiff attorney in each of these.

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      MICHIGAN STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (END-OF-JANUARY 2022)

      Strike 3 Holdings Michigan Eastern District Court

      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 68.34.50.15 (Case No. 2:22-cv-10165)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 68.42.78.62 (Case No. 2:22-cv-10167)

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      NEW JERSEY STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (END-OF-JANUARY 2022)

      Strike 3 Holdings New Jersey District Court

      STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.54.110.142 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00331)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.54.95.201 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00336)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.70.104.78 (Case No. 3:22-cv-00341)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 24.228.81.242 (Case No. 3:22-cv-00325)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 47.20.201.11 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00333)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 68.196.156.3 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00332)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.118.51.168 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00335)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.142.119.11 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00328)

      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.248.72.164 (Case No. 1:22-cv-00324)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.187.78.19 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00327)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.76.113.53 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00337)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.88.201.92 (Case No. 3:22-cv-00340)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 74.102.254.193 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00326)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 74.105.114.66 (Case No. 3:22-cv-00339)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 74.105.150.8 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00330)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 74.105.175.174 (Case No. 3:22-cv-00343)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.234.16.151 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00334)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.242.217.47 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00329)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 98.110.118.77 (Case No. 3:22-cv-00342)

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      NEW YORK STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (END-OF-JANUARY 2022)

      Strike 3 Holdings New York Eastern District Court

      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 2:22-cv-00533, 2:22-cv-00534, 2:22-cv-00535, 2:22-cv-00536, 2:22-cv-00538, 2:22-cv-00539, 2:22-cv-00540, 2:22-cv-00541, and 2:22-cv-00542)

      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 100.37.12.43 (Case No. 1:22-cv-00483)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 151.202.180.12 (Case No. 1:22-cv-00474)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.46.250.90 (Case No. 1:22-cv-00482)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.81.173.4 (Case No. 1:22-cv-00473)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.132.24.237 (Case No. 1:22-cv-00477)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.198.29.97 (Case No. 1:22-cv-00480)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 70.23.54.59 (Case No. 1:22-cv-00479)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.105.69.74 (Case No. 1:22-cv-00472)

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      Strike 3 Holdings New York Southern District Court

      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 1:22-cv-00780, 1:22-cv-00781, 1:22-cv-00782, 1:22-cv-00783, 1:22-cv-00784, 1:22-cv-00785, 7:22-cv-00785, 7:22-cv-00787, 7:22-cv-00789, 7:22-cv-00790, 7:22-cv-00792, and 7:22-cv-00793)

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      PENNSYLVANIA STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (END-OF-JANUARY 2022)

      Strike 3 Holdings Pennsylvania Eastern District Court

      STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.14.245.83 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00351)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.16.6.24 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00346)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 64.121.116.203
      (Case No. 5:22-cv-00354)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 64.121.146.20 (Case No. 5:22-cv-00355)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 70.20.219.145 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00345)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.175.82.240 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00348)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.230.127.99 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00350)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.230.167.211 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00353)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.230.47.204 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00352)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.13.122.182 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00347)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 98.225.145.120 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00349)

      Strike 3 Holdings LLC Pennsylvania Middle District Court

      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 108.11.240.120 (Case No. 1:22-cv-00149)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 174.55.81.255 (Case No. 1:22-cv-00146)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 174.60.194.94 (Case No. 1:22-cv-00151)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.101.185.194 (Case No. 1:22-cv-00147)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 73.175.155.14 (Case No. 1:22-cv-00148)

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      VIRGINIA STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (END-OF-JANUARY 2022)

      Strike 3 Holdings LLC Virginia Eastern District Court

      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 1:22-cv-00094, 1:22-cv-00095, 1:22-cv-00096, 1:22-cv-00097, 1:22-cv-00098, 1:22-cv-00099, and 1:22-cv-00100)

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      OBSERVATION #2: STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS HIRED PREVIOUS MALIBU MEDIA LLC ATTORNEYS

      Strike 3 Holdings LLC has been hiring former Malibu Media LLC attorneys.

      I noticed this immediately when I started to see names of old adversaries who I have not heard from since Malibu Media LLC stopped filing their onslaught of lawsuits against John Doe Defendants.

      This is not the first time Strike 3 Holdings LLC has hired former Malibu Media LLC attorneys. Thus far, I have seen the following former Malibu Media LLC attorneys represent Strike 3 Holdings, LLC clients:

      • Jacqueline Marie James of The James Law Firm (she actually left Malibu Media LLC while they were still suing [for good reasons])
      • Joel A. Bernier of Boroja, Bernier & Associates, PLLC

        and now…
      • Paul Stephen Beik of Beik Law Firm PLLC
      • Jon Alexander Hoppe of Law Offices Of Jon A. Hoppe, Esquire

      WHY HIRING FORMER MALIBU MEDIA LLC ATTORNEYS IS RELEVANT

      What this means — Strike 3 Holdings LLC attorneys can only be described as “territorial.” For example, Lincoln Bandlow takes all of the California cases. Jacqueline James takes all of the New York cases. Forrest (Teo) Seger took all of the Texas cases.

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      WILL THERE BE BAD BLOOD BETWEEN MALIBU ATTORNEYS AND STRIKE 3 ATTORNEYS?

      Seeing “old” Malibu Media LLC plaintiff attorneys pop-up in jurisdictions which formerly “belonged to” other Strike 3 Holdings LLC attorneys is probably a source of contention between those attorneys and their client, Strike 3 Holdings LLC.

      Disney Castle Disneyland Orlando  - 20220904 / Pixabay
      20220904 / Pixabay

      GUESS: STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS NEEDS ATTORNEYS TO HANDLE THEIR MIAMI-DADE BACKLOG.

      If I were a guessing man, I would guess that this “shake-up” of attorneys suggests that either 1) Strike 3 Holdings LLC is starting to change their approach — perhaps to the kind of underhanded approach with “dirty tricks” that got Malibu Media LLC in trouble in the first place.

      Or, 2) we are about to see a new flood of new cases — perhaps a new “kind” of Strike 3 Holdings LLC lawsuit, where they needed the extra manpower to handle the new workload whatever their new case will require.

      WILL WE BE SEEING A NEW “COPYRIGHT TROLL” COMPANY BRANCH OFF FROM STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS?

      Or, 3) perhaps we are about to see a new “copyright troll” entity pop up, for example, a new adult film copyright company like Malibu Media LLC or like Strike 3 Holdings LLC. Thus, like chess pieces on a chess board, Strike 3 Holdings LLC might be moving the “old” chess pieces into new positions, and replacing their old positions with former Malibu Media LLC attorneys.

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      Jack O Lantern Halloween Metallic  - flutie8211 / Pixabay
      flutie8211 / Pixabay

      MY OPINION: STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS IS CLEANING UP THEIR BACKLOG OF ACCUSED MIAMI-DADE DEFENDANTS WHO HAVE NOT YET BEEN SUED IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.

      I personally think that Strike 3 Holdings LLC has just “paid for” and has just built up a torrent (monsoon? what’s the word?) of IP addresses belonging to ISP account holders who allegedly downloaded their client’s copyrighted films.

      Cashman Law Firm offering a "NO SETTLEMENT" option

      THE 3-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TO SUE DEFENDANTS IN FEDERAL COURTS.

      This list of IP addresses from their Miami-Dade County, Florida Strike 3 Holdings LLC cases point to a flood of potential defendants, and Strike 3 Holdings LLC is looking at a 3-year statute of limitations before they can no longer file a copyright infringement lawsuit against these defendants because the 3-year statute of limitations is about to run out.

      I have already started seeing “old entries” on the EXHIBIT A spreadsheets start to age past three years. What this means is that Strike 3 Holdings LLC has been tracking these defendants from the Miami-Dade cases for close-to or, longer-than three years which means their copyright infringement cases might be becoming stale.

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      LET’S TALK ABOUT “LACHES.”

      Copyright infringement allows a plaintiff to sue an accused downloader for the unlawful downloading, streaming, or viewing their copyrighted videos. While the statute of limitations is calculated from “three years from the most recent date of infringement,” I could still see them running into problems (e.g., with laches) if they have been tracking a defendant for longer than three years.

      I just mentioned “laches.” The question a defense attorney like myself (Rob Cashman, owner of the Cashman Law Firm PLLC) is, “if they have been tracking this defendant for more than three years (the statute of limitations), why did they not bring suit against my client earlier?”

      Why did they not send DMCA copyright violation notices?

      I could also go on and on with other legal strategies, for example, why didn’t Strike 3 Holdings LLC try to “mitigate their damages” (meaning, why didn’t they minimize their damage) by sending out a DMCA copyright violation notice to the accused ISP account holder?

      Obviously, this kind of “cut it out, or else we’ll sue you” letter provides Strike 3 Holdings with ABSOLUTELY NO CASHFLOW which undermines their entire business model, so I 100% understand why they wouldn’t do this, especially when what they are seeking is SETTLEMENTS, not judgements against accused downloaders.

      I also think that these THOUSANDS of Strike 3 Holdings LLC lawsuits are a “cash cow” for Strike 3 Holdings and their copyright troll attorneys, and thus I suspect that this new flood of hiring of old Malibu Media LLC attorneys is merely an attempt to sue their huge list of “old” IP addresses that they have built over the years from their Miami-Dade Bill of Discovery cases.

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      Why these legal strategies likely do not matter.

      Here is where they will sneak out of this, and this should make you mad.

      Strike 3 Holdings LLC cases continue because they are PROFITABLE.

      In order to even approach the court with a legal argument that I have just suggested, for example, statute of limitations, or better, laches, you need to litigate the claims against you in court.

      This means, you need to file an answer with the court, go through discovery (e.g., sit down and have the plaintiff attorneys ask you questions under oath to take your testimony), and then argue that their claims do not have merit.

      This works only if you can actually go through the deposition without admitting guilt to copyright infringement.

      Why these legal strategies might backfire.

      If you did the downloads, then arguing anything is a dangerous strategy because the plaintiff attorney will be using your testimony to prove their claims against you, and your legal response will be merely a “yeah, but” retort.

      Obviously *IF* you are forced into litigation because you were NAMED AND SERVED as a defendant and you cannot settle the claims against you, then of course, by all means research this approach.

      But since Strike 3 Holdings LLC is more of a “settlement extortion scheme,” (I am using that term loosely) then chances are, if you got named and served, you or your attorney did something wrong because there is no reason you should not have been able to settle earlier on (even if you could not afford the settlement numbers they would have asked for).

      [It is strange hearing this sort of “jaded” legal speak from my own mouth, but my goal here is to educate you on your options, and to discuss what Strike 3 Holdings LLC appears to be doing, and how this could affect their claims against you… and more importantly, your pocket book.]

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      Strike 3 Holdings Miami-Dade Lawsuits - Finger Art Robbery Thief Bandit - Saydung89 / Pixabay
      Saydung89 / Pixabay

      Quick RECAP about the Miami-Dade County, Florida Bill of Discovery Filings.

      Other “Strike 3 Holdings by month” articles that I have written thus far are for the MARCH 2019, APRIL 2019, JANUARY 2020, JULY 2020, AUGUST 2020, and most recently, the JANUARY 2022 article.

      RECAP: Miami-Dade County, Florida Court “Lawsuits”.

      In the Miami-Dade County Court, Strike 3 Holdings devised a way to unmask the identities of THOUSANDS of defendants without needing to sue each defendant in Federal Court. They did this by exploiting the Florida “Pure Bill of Discovery” laws, and thus far, the Miami-Dade, Florida judges are allowing them to continue this scheme.

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      If you are involved in a Miami-Dade Florida state-based lawsuit, there is much that you will need to understand, as these cases differ from the copyright infringement lawsuits which are filed in federal courts.

      • INITIAL ARTICLE EXPLAINING HOW STRIKE 3 IS USING THE STATE COURTS TO UNMASK DEFENDANTS’ IDENTITIES.
      • FOLLOW-UP ARTICLE EXPOSING THE “BOSSES” BEHIND THE SCHEME
      • RECENT ARTICLE EXPLAINING HOW DEFENSE ATTORNEYS ARE LURING DEFENDANTS IN WITH A “BAIT AND SWITCH” — OFFERING TO FILE A MOTION TO QUASH KNOWING IT WILL END UP FORCING THEIR CLIENTS TO SETTLE OR BE SUED.

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      WHERE TO LEARN ABOUT THE STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES?

      For those of you looking for an initial understanding of the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC copyright holder, you can click here to read the “JUST THE FACTS – STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC” article I wrote about them.

      For those of you looking to delve deeper into who is Strike 3 Holdings LLC and what are they looking for, you can click here to read the “EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW IN ONE PAGE ABOUT YOUR STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC” article I wrote afterwards.

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      RECENT STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC FEDERAL COURT FILINGS:

      …Now onto the federal court filings in each state.

      STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC FILINGS - FEBRUARY 2022

      The Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases filed in February 2022 can be found below. I have separated these cases by court.

      CALIFORNIA STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (FEBRUARY 2022)

      Strike 3 Holdings California Central District Court

      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.33.218.132 (Case No. 2:22-cv-01374)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 138.229.240.163 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00970)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.112.75.60 (Case No. 2:22-cv-01355)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.90.233.35 (Case No. 2:22-cv-01371)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 45.48.20.229 (Case No. 2:22-cv-01377)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 47.144.165.113 (Case No. 2:22-cv-01370)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 47.144.20.18 (Case No. 2:22-cv-01363)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 47.144.245.82 (Case No. 5:22-cv-00368)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 47.151.198.156 (Case No. 2:22-cv-01375)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 47.153.100.224 (Case No. 5:22-cv-00367)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 47.156.12.14 (Case No. 2:22-cv-01167)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 70.229.243.16 (Case No. 2:22-cv-01376)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 72.37.135.19 (Case No. 2:22-cv-01367)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.221.128.232 (Case No. 8:22-cv-00317)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.9.63.30 (Case No. 5:22-cv-00366)

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      CONNECTICUT STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (FEBRUARY 2022)

      Strike 3 Holdings Connecticut District Court

      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 3:22-cv-00300, 3:22-cv-00302, 3:22-cv-00303, 3:22-cv-00304, 3:22-cv-00305, 3:22-cv-00306, 3:22-cv-00307, 3:22-cv-00308, and 3:22-cv-00309)

      …These are newer cases, and the judge has not yet been assigned for these. I’m guessing Jackie James will be the plaintiff attorney in each of these.

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      FLORIDA STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (FEBRUARY 2022)

      Strike 3 Holdings Florida Middle District Court

      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Case Nos. 3:22-cv-00161, 3:22-cv-00162, 6:22-cv-00349, 8:22-cv-00378, and 8:22-cv-00397)

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      Strike 3 Holdings Florida Southern District Court

      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE (Case No. 1:22-cv-20480)

      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 172.3.195.44 (Case No. 0:22-cv-60274)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 45.18.28.10 (Case No. 0:22-cv-60268)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 45.25.159.62 (Case No. 9:22-cv-80264)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 66.176.129.243 (Case No. 9:22-cv-80258)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 66.176.129.243 (Case No. 9:22-cv-80258)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 69.219.187.87 (Case No. 0:22-cv-60270)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 69.219.187.87 (Case No. 0:22-cv-60270)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 71.57.155.54 (Case No. 9:22-cv-80263)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 71.57.155.54 (Case No. 9:22-cv-80263)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 73.1.155.203 (Case No. 9:22-cv-80266)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 73.1.155.203 (Case No. 9:22-cv-80266)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 73.125.19.216 (Case No. 9:22-cv-80261)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 73.125.19.216 (Case No. 9:22-cv-80261)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 73.139.49.115 (Case No. 0:22-cv-60267)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 73.139.49.115 (Case No. 0:22-cv-60267)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 73.179.57.140 (Case No. 9:22-cv-80262)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 73.179.57.140 (Case No. 9:22-cv-80262)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 73.244.198.211 (Case No. 0:22-cv-60266)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 73.244.198.211 (Case No. 0:22-cv-60266)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 73.245.125.186 (Case No. 0:22-cv-60273)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 73.46.71.57 (Case No. 0:22-cv-60276)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 73.46.71.57 (Case No. 0:22-cv-60276)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 75.74.246.123 (Case No. 9:22-cv-80257)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 75.74.246.123 (Case No. 9:22-cv-80257)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 75.74.46.90 (Case No. 9:22-cv-80255)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 75.74.46.90 (Case No. 9:22-cv-80255)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 98.219.76.178 (Case No. 0:22-cv-60272)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 98.219.76.178 (Case No. 0:22-cv-60272)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 98.249.245.162 (Case No. 0:22-cv-60275)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 98.249.245.162 (Case No. 0:22-cv-60275)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 99.10.186.123 (Case No. 9:22-cv-80259)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 99.10.186.123 (Case No. 9:22-cv-80259)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 99.151.214.192 (Case No. 9:22-cv-80265)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 99.151.214.192 (Case No. 9:22-cv-80265)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 99.26.107.87 (Case No. 0:22-cv-60265)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 99.60.102.45 (Case No. 9:22-cv-80256)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 99.60.102.45 (Case No. 9:22-cv-80256)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 99.76.147.97 (Case No. 9:22-cv-80260)

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      MARYLAND STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (FEBRUARY 2022)

      Strike 3 Holdings Maryland District Court

      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 1:22-cv-00246, 1:22-cv-00248, 1:22-cv-00249, 1:22-cv-00250, 1:22-cv-00251, 1:22-cv-00252, 1:22-cv-00253, 1:22-cv-00254, 1:22-cv-00255, 1:22-cv-00256, 1:22-cv-00257, 8:22-cv-00258, 8:22-cv-00259, 8:22-cv-00260, 8:22-cv-00261, 8:22-cv-00262, 8:22-cv-00263, 8:22-cv-00264, 8:22-cv-00265, 8:22-cv-00266, 8:22-cv-00266, 8:22-cv-00267, 8:22-cv-00268, 8:22-cv-00269, and 8:22-cv-00269)

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      MICHIGAN STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (FEBRUARY 2022)

      Strike 3 Holdings Michigan Eastern District Court

      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 24.192.17.246 (Case No. 2:22-cv-10441)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 24.192.207.67 (Case No. 2:22-cv-10421)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 68.36.180.203 (Case No. 2:22-cv-10426)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 69.14.251.249 (Case No. 2:22-cv-10418)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 69.14.251.249 (Case No. 4:22-cv-10418)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 69.14.251.249 (Case No. 4:22-cv-10418)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 69.14.255.229 (Case No. 2:22-cv-10419)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 69.14.255.229 (Case No. 5:22-cv-10419)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 69.14.255.229 (Case No. 5:22-cv-10419)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 71.83.30.233 (Case No. 2:22-cv-10442)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 71.83.30.233 (Case No. 3:22-cv-10442)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 96.27.8.32 (Case No. 2:22-cv-10444)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 97.69.211.58 (Case No. 2:22-cv-10420)

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      NEW JERSEY STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (FEBRUARY 2022)

      Strike 3 Holdings New Jersey District Court

      Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.61.108.70 (Case No. 1:22-cv-01076)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.70.190.75 (Case No. 2:22-cv-01078)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 204.194.191.189 (Case No. 2:22-cv-01080)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 47.18.0.201 (Case No. 2:22-cv-01079)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 47.18.20.132 (Case No. 2:22-cv-01077)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 68.172.242.44 (Case No. 2:22-cv-01083)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.115.81.98 (Case No. 2:22-cv-01081)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.88.171.181 (Case No. 1:22-cv-01075)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.10.78.68 (Case No. 1:22-cv-01074)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.178.140.150 (Case No. 3:22-cv-01082)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.199.53.171 (Case No. 1:22-cv-01073)

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      NEW YORK STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (FEBRUARY 2022)

      Strike 3 Holdings New York Eastern District Court

      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 2:22-cv-01037, 2:22-cv-01038, 2:22-cv-01039, 2:22-cv-01040, 2:22-cv-01041, 2:22-cv-01042, 2:22-cv-01044, and 2:22-cv-01046)

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      Strike 3 Holdings New York Northern District Court

      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 3:22-cv-00183, 1:22-cv-00180, and 1:22-cv-00179)

      Strike 3 Holdings New York Southern District Court

      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 1:22-cv-01435, 1:22-cv-01614, 1:22-cv-01615, 1:22-cv-01616, 1:22-cv-01617, 1:22-cv-01618, 1:22-cv-01620, 1:22-cv-01621, 1:22-cv-01622, 1:22-cv-01623, 1:22-cv-01624, 7:22-cv-01625, 7:22-cv-01626, 7:22-cv-01627, 7:22-cv-01628, and 7:22-cv-01629)

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      Strike 3 Holdings New York Western District Court

      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 1:22-cv-00161, 1:22-cv-00162, 1:22-cv-00163, 1:22-cv-00164, 6:22-cv-06097, 6:22-cv-06098, 6:22-cv-06099, and 6:22-cv-06100)

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      TEXAS STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (FEBRUARY 2022)

      Strike 3 Holdings Texas Northern District Court

      Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 3:22-cv-00258, 3:22-cv-00261, 3:22-cv-00262, 3:22-cv-00263, 3:22-cv-00251, 3:22-cv-00254, 3:22-cv-00255, 3:22-cv-00257, 3:22-cv-00259, and 3:22-cv-00260)

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC FILINGS - EARLY-MARCH 2022

      The Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases filed in just the past few days (ealy March, 2022) can be found below. I have separated these cases by court.

      CALIFORNIA STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (FEBRUARY 2022)

      Strike 3 Holdings California Central District Court

      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.184.23.125 (Case No. 8:22-cv-00319)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 45.48.130.165 (Case No. 8:22-cv-00323)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 45.48.153.253 (Case No. 8:22-cv-00324)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 47.149.212.11 (Case No. 8:22-cv-00322)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.95.179.52 (Case No. 8:22-cv-00321)

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      Strike 3 Holdings California Eastern District Court

      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.180.223.235 (Case No. 2:22-at-00230)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.180.223.235 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00383)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.116.211.114 (Case No. 2:22-at-00232)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.116.211.114 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00386)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.12.214.39 (Case No. 2:22-at-00234)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.12.214.39 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00388)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.48.149.145 (Case No. 2:22-at-00235)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.48.149.145 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00391)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.71.36.146 (Case No. 2:22-at-00233)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.71.36.146 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00387)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.71.36.146 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00387)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.244.43.95 (Case No. 2:22-at-00229)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.244.43.95 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00382)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.36.124.204 (Case No. 2:22-at-00236)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.36.124.204 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00392)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.36.92.221 (Case No. 2:22-at-00237)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.36.92.221 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00393)

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      Strike 3 Holdings California Northern District Court

      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.1.89.109 (Case No. 3:22-cv-01307)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.1.89.109 (Case No. 5:22-cv-01307)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 135.180.160.77 (Case No. 4:22-cv-01303)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 135.180.172.15 (Case No. 3:22-cv-01319)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 135.180.9.90 (Case No. 3:22-cv-01367)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 135.180.9.90 (Case No. 5:22-cv-01367)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 157.131.112.143 (Case No. 3:22-cv-01351)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 157.131.112.143 (Case No. 4:22-cv-01351)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 157.131.143.5 (Case No. 4:22-cv-01300)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 198.27.174.63 (Case No. 3:22-cv-01306)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 198.27.181.66 (Case No. 3:22-cv-01373)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 208.95.232.16 (Case No. 5:22-cv-01377)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.4.129.29 (Case No. 5:22-cv-01374)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.4.137.28 (Case No. 3:22-cv-01323)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.4.137.28 (Case No. 4:22-cv-01323)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.6.23.182 (Case No. 5:22-cv-01299)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 70.249.171.8 (Case No. 4:22-cv-01297)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.202.135.191 (Case No. 3:22-cv-01326)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.202.135.191 (Case No. 3:22-cv-01326)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.202.232.113 (Case No. 4:22-cv-01302)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.202.232.113 (Case No. 5:22-cv-01302)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.158.250.49 (Case No. 5:22-cv-01380)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.189.100.102 (Case No. 5:22-cv-01379)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.189.241.28 (Case No. 5:22-cv-01375)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.202.83.113 (Case No. 5:22-cv-01378)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.222.121.149 (Case No. 3:22-cv-01352)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.222.145.223 (Case No. 3:22-cv-01356)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.231.83.200 (Case No. 5:22-cv-01376)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.126.199.190 (Case No. 3:22-cv-01298)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.126.199.190 (Case No. 4:22-cv-01298)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.21.45.56 (Case No. 3:22-cv-01304)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.234.8.11 (Case No. 4:22-cv-01301)

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      MICHIGAN STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (FEBRUARY 2022)

      Strike 3 Holdings Michigan Eastern District Court

      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 24.127.149.197 (Case No. 2:22-cv-10455)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 68.49.150.160 (Case No. 2:22-cv-10456)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 96.27.12.104 (Case No. 2:22-cv-10454)

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      Strike 3 Holdings Michigan Western District Court

      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 173.46.250.253 (Case No. 1:22-cv-00183)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 69.176.153.216 (Case No. 1:22-cv-00182)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 73.145.145.151 (Case No. 1:22-cv-00185)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 99.36.132.216 (Case No. 1:22-cv-00184)

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      NEW JERSEY STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (FEBRUARY 2022)

      Strike 3 Holdings New Jersey District Court

      Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.8.196.221 (Case No. 3:22-cv-01102)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.35.156.120 (Case No. 2:22-cv-01091)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.72.102.89 (Case No. 3:22-cv-01092)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 64.67.140.65 (Case No. 3:22-cv-01094)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 67.85.53.99 (Case No. 2:22-cv-01093)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 67.86.58.17 (Case No. 3:22-cv-01100)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.248.230.131 (Case No. 3:22-cv-01095)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.188.123.117 (Case No. 3:22-cv-01103)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.188.52.63 (Case No. 3:22-cv-01099)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 98.109.183.172 (Case No. 3:22-cv-01097)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 98.221.165.5 (Case No. 3:22-cv-01098)

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      NEW YORK STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (FEBRUARY 2022)

      Strike 3 Holdings New York Eastern District Court

      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.46.51.91 (Case No. 1:22-cv-01125)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 173.68.80.22 (Case No. 1:22-cv-01135)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.129.219.82 (Case No. 1:22-cv-01137)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.105.118.76 (Case No. 1:22-cv-01139)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.167.137.112 (Case No. 1:22-cv-01134)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.190.14.247 (Case No. 1:22-cv-01128)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 72.69.108.110 (Case No. 1:22-cv-01130)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 74.108.60.225 (Case No. 1:22-cv-01127)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 96.224.248.73 (Case No. 1:22-cv-01138)
      …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.116.66.52 (Case No. 1:22-cv-01126)

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      PENNSYLVANIA STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (FEBRUARY 2022)

      Strike 3 Holdings Pennsylvania Eastern District Court

      Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.16.194.155 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00782)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.36.213.126 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00791)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.4.232.217 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00785)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 141.158.32.44 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00792)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.75.234.140 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00794)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 64.121.196.231 (Case No. 5:22-cv-00803)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 64.121.72.67 (Case No. 5:22-cv-00801)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 68.82.243.29 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00784)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.225.46.240 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00800)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.230.181.35 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00798)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.244.105.184 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00781)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.86.204.218 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00795)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.92.47.69 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00796)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.165.203.234 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00797)
      …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 74.109.124.49 (Case No. 2:22-cv-00799)

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      Strike 3 Holdings Pennsylvania Middle District Court

      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 174.54.72.18 (Case No. 1:22-cv-00318)
      …v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 75.97.205.3 (Case No. 4:22-cv-00319)

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      TEXAS STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (FEBRUARY 2022)

      Strike 3 Holdings Texas Eastern District Court

      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 4:22-cv-00155, 4:22-cv-00156, 4:22-cv-00157, 4:22-cv-00158, 4:22-cv-00163, 4:22-cv-00164, 4:22-cv-00165, 4:22-cv-00166, and 4:22-cv-00167)

      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 97.99.244.198 (Case No. 4:22-cv-00162)

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      Strike 3 Holdings Texas Northern District Court

      Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 3:22-cv-00495, 3:22-cv-00481, 3:22-cv-00482, 3:22-cv-00483, 3:22-cv-00485, 3:22-cv-00486, 3:22-cv-00496, 3:22-cv-00497, and 3:22-cv-00499)

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      Strike 3 Holdings Texas Western District Court

      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 1:22-cv-00198, 1:22-cv-00199, 1:22-cv-00200, 1:22-cv-00203, 1:22-cv-00204, 1:22-cv-00205, 1:22-cv-00206, 1:22-cv-00207, 5:22-cv-00202, 5:22-cv-00203, 5:22-cv-00204, 5:22-cv-00205, 5:22-cv-00206, 5:22-cv-00207, 5:22-cv-00208, 5:22-cv-00210, 5:22-cv-00211, and 5:22-cv-00212)

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      VIRGINIA STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (FEBRUARY 2022)

      Strike 3 Holdings Virginia Eastern District Court

      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 1:22-cv-00219, 1:22-cv-00220, 1:22-cv-00221, 1:22-cv-00222, 1:22-cv-00223, 1:22-cv-00224, 1:22-cv-00226, 1:22-cv-00227, 1:22-cv-00228, and 1:22-cv-00229)

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      Gnome Character Dwarf Cartoon  - Jazella / Pixabay
      Jazella / Pixabay

      IN SUMMARY

      I honestly don’t know what Strike 3 Holdings LLC will be doing with the THOUSANDS (possibly TENS-OF-THOUSANDS of accused defendants) they have amassed in their Miami-Dade County, Florida Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases.

      Logically, they have to do SOMETHING.

      If they do nothing, they will have let so much money in filing fees and their own attorney’s work go to waste. I am not egging them on one way or another, but I understand basic business concepts, and them doing nothing is simply WASTEFUL… both of the Miami-Dade County Court’s time, and their own attorneys’ time.

      Not to mention the thousands of families’ lives they have ruined by sending subpoenas to the household ISP account holder and accusing them of downloading pornography. Is there no responsibility for false accusations?

      My only conclusion is that they will do something with that growing backlog of names. I wrote a month or so the article on “Why I Think the Strike 3 Holdings LLC Cases Will NEVER End,” and I wrote that article thinking of these lawsuits from their viewpoint.

      Our Cashman Law Firm PLLC has focused our practice since 2010 on pre-trial strategies in federal courts across the US, specifically dealing with the evolving mass-BitTorrent lawsuits. It is my job to notice trends, and this month, I am noticing new names — old Malibu Media LLC plaintiff attorney names — and I am raising a flag for you to be alert and to ask why they are doing this.

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >


      [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Strike 3 Holdings LLC cases and options on how to proceed (even specifically for your case), you can e-mail us at info[at]cashmanlawfirm.com, you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your Strike 3 Holdings LLC case, or you can SMS/Whatsapp us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

      CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

        NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

        How Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuits use an “EXHIBIT A” spreadsheet and your IP Address history to prove their claims of infringement.

        Strike 3 Holdings List of Cases strike-3-holdings-march-2022-lawsuits

        Strike 3 Holdings EXHIBIT A spreadsheets can usually be found attached to each lawsuit. These “EXHIBIT A” spreadsheets list the alleged dates and times that their copyrighted titles were allegedly downloaded by the ISP account subscriber.

        Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuits connect the IP address which was used to download the copyrighted title to the account holder by having the ISP identify a particular account holder as being the one assigned a particular IP address on a particular date and time.

        It is THIS document that they use to calculate the dollar amounts they will ask for when negotiating a settlement.

        Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

        My opinion – the Strike 3 Holdings EXHIBIT A spreadsheet employs an interesting scare tactic – multiple instances of infringement.

        I personally have reason to believe that their spreadsheet is inaccurate, because I have spotted dates and times where a download allegedly happened, but my client was out of town, or had documentation that they were in another location.

        As scary as it is, the “EXHIBIT A” spreadsheet is not useful in your defense.

        That being said, REMEMBER: a copyright infringement lawsuit asks for STATUTORY DAMAGES of $150,000 for ONE instance of infringement.

        Claiming that “my client illegally downloaded these copyrighted videos, but not these copyrighted videos” is a pretty bad argument. There are other methods, however, of negotiating a settlement which are not based on whether you downloaded a particular video on June 4th, 2021.

        I also wanted to point out that Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuits do not sue a downloader for only one claim of copyright infringement. Rather, they lurk on the bittorrent networks and wait MONTHS, IF NOT YEARS letting the accused defendant download more and more of their copyrighted titles.

        Once the defendant downloads enough titles (usually, around 26 of their copyrighted adult film videos), they will file the lawsuit.

        The results of their “lurkings” are seen on the Strike 3 Holdings EXHIBIT A spreadsheet.

        Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

        Strike 3 Holdings EXHIBIT A spreadsheet - Spy Computer Spyware Surveillance  - Tumisu / Pixabay
        Tumisu / Pixabay

        Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuits are won or lost at the DEPOSITION, not by arguing the inaccuracy of the “EXHIBIT A” spreadsheet.

        I have other issues with the list of titles my client allegedly downloaded on their “EXHIBIT A” spreadsheet, but really, the accuracy of their spreadsheet is not relevant.

        Why? Because in a deposition, the Strike 3 Holdings lawsuit needs only to prove that it is “more likely than not” that you downloaded ONE of their copyrighted videos. They can easily get to this proof by putting you in a room with a court reporter (e.g., in a deposition), putting you under oath, and taking your testimony.

        Think about it. If they put you under oath and ask you, “have you downloaded, streamed, or viewed one or more of our copyrighted videos” and you say yes, you have a $150,000 problem.

        Whether you were there downloading on June 4th, 2021 as per line 7 of the “EXHIBIT A” spreadsheet is irrelevant.

        [NOTE TO THE READER: If I have time, I will create a short article describing Strike 3 Holdings’ “EXHIBIT A.” I will describe the various columns, the UTC Dates and Times the download allegedly happened, etc. I will explain what a “hash” is, and I will explain how I sincerely doubt a hash actually matches the lower-quality file you might have downloaded via BitTorrent. I will also discuss why I believe their list is out of date order, and why I believe their list might be missing titles you may have downloaded after the date this document was submitted to the court. Lastly, I would enjoy discussing the PCAP file.

        The reason I might not do this right away — again — is that it is your TESTIMONY UNDER OATH (e.g., during a deposition) that would find you guilty of copyright infringement, not whether the hash value on their spreadsheet matches the file or video you allegedly downloaded by BitTorrent.

        So at best, this would be an intellectual tech-based “good to know” article, but it wouldn’t help you win your lawsuit. Thus it is very LOW PRIORITY to write this article.]

        Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

        The “EXHIBIT A” spreadsheet of claims IS relevant to calculate the settlement numbers they will ask you to pay.

        I guess what I need you to know about the Strike 3 Holdings EXHIBIT A spreadsheet is that it contains dates and times you allegedly downloaded their copyrighted videos. Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuit uses this spreadsheet merely to calculate how much they will ask you to pay to settle the claims against you.

        If Strike 3 Holdings LLC has properly 1) done their research to make sure they are suing the right person, and 2) they sue the actual ISP account subscriber who was assigned the IP address at the date and time the download actually happened (meaning, if they sue the correct person as the “John Doe subscriber assigned IP address XYZ,”), THEN:

        They will use their Strike 3 Holdings EXHIBIT A spreadsheet to multiply a per-title settlement amount by the number of downloads listed on that document.

        Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

        FOR IMMEDIATE CONTACT WITH AN ATTORNEY: To set up a free consultation to speak to an attorney about your Strike 3 Holdings, LLC lawsuit, click here.  Lastly, please feel free to e-mail me at info[at] cashmanlawfirm.com, or call 713-364-3476 to speak to me now about your case (I do prefer you read the articles first), or to get your questions answered.

        CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

          NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

          Book a Phone Consultation with a Cashman Law Firm Attorney

          The Secret Why Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuits Will Never End.

          Strike 3 Holdings List of Cases strike-3-holdings-march-2022-lawsuits

          Piracy cannot be stopped, but Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuits will continue forever. WHY? Because Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuits are based on monitoring the internet activities of downloaders, and they are simply too profitable for Strike 3 Holdings LLC to ever end them.

          Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuits  - TheDigitalArtist / Pixabay
          TheDigitalArtist / Pixabay

          Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

          INTRODUCTION – WHY THESE STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LAWSUITS WILL NEVER END.

          I used to wonder whether copyright infringement lawsuits like the thousands of Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits filed each year (or the hundreds each month) would ever stop. As the owner of the Cashman Law Firm PLLC, and as an activist, I still do not believe that copyright holders should use the federal courts to extort a $10,000+ settlement for the download of a few copyrighted videos.

          I have, however, come to understand that piracy will never end, and the copyright trolls (those copyright holders who choose to sue accused downloaders) will never stop suing.

          Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

          Below are reasons why I do not think the Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuit Settlement Scheme will ever end:

          REASON #1: To sue and obtain a settlement is much cheaper than to spend that same money to obtain customers on their subscription-based adult film websites.

          Let’s start with a bit of sarcasm. It is probably too much to ask them to return to the traditional business model of selling $100/year subscriptions to their adult film websites… not when they could make $10,000+ in settlement per person they sue.

          Quick Logic — if you understand this, you’ll understand why they keep suing people.

          Strike 3 Holdings, LLC can either spend their money trying to get customers on their adult film websites, or they can spend that same money suing ISP account holders who might have downloaded their copyrighted videos illegally using bittorrent in return for a windfall settlement payment.

          • $100/year subscription for one person;
          • $10,000+ Strike 3 Settlement Amount for one lawsuit…
          • CONCLUSION: $10,000/lawsuit vs. $100/year subscription is the equivalent of them selling 100 SUBSCRIBERS PURCHASING ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTIONS FOR ONE YEAR. How much would it cost them in advertising dollars to gain 100 subscribers? Or, they could pay $400 and file one Strike 3 Holdings lawsuit against ONE ISP account holder in return for one rewarding settlement payment.

          As you can clearly see, it is cheaper to just sue downloaders rather than to try to make a profit the traditional way (trying to sell their subscription-based adult film services).

          Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

          REASON #2: The settlement money they receive is a VERY PROFITABLE return for their “investment” (the filing fee they pay to file each lawsuit).

          You must understand that it is simply TOO PROFITABLE for someone like Strike 3 Holdings LLC to file a lawsuit against an accused “John Doe Subscriber assigned IP address” as Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits often do. Why? Because the cost to file a lawsuit in a federal court is cheap compared to the rewards the copyright holders will get in return for filing that lawsuit.

          [PERHAPS LINK HERE TO A SHORT ARTICLE ON STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LAWSUITS & SETTLEMENT AMOUNTS.

          IN THAT ARTICLE, LINK TO THE MORE IN-DEPTH ARTICLES]

          Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuits - Banker  - garyh18 / Pixabay
          garyh18 / Pixabay

          Strike 3 Holdings LLC, a copyright holder of the Tushy, Blacked, Vixen, and Deeper brand names only pays a filing fee of ~$400 per lawsuit to sue an IP address or an ISP account subscriber in federal court.

          In return for their “investment” of paying the filing fee for each lawsuit, they can potentially make a return on their investment of $10,000+ per lawsuit.

          Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

          SIDE ARTICLE: STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS MIAMI-DADE COUNTY-COURT FILINGS PROVIDE STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LAWSUITS A CHEAPER ALTERNATIVE TO FILING IN FEDERAL COURTS.

          NOTE: There are even CHEAPER ways to sue an accused defendant (in State and County Courts). Although improper, Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits still make use of these improper venues because nobody stops them from doing so.

          Why would Strike 3 Holdings file lawsuits in the Miami-Dade County Court (a STATE court, and not a FEDERAL court where copyright infringement lawsuits belong)?

          Strike 3 Holdings List of Cases strike-3-holdings-march-2022-lawsuits

          Strike 3 Holdings Miami-Dade County Court Lawsuits are cheaper to file than federal court lawsuits.

          STATE FILING FEES TO FILE A LAWSUIT (cheap) vs. FEDERAL COURT FILING FEES TO FILE A LAWSUIT (less cheap).
          • A Federal Court copyright infringement civil lawsuit costs ~$400/lawsuit to sue ONE DEFENDANT.
          • A state or county-based “Bill of Discovery” lawsuit costs around the same amount of money (~$350/lawsuit), BUT STATE-BASED LAWSUITS ARE CHEAPER because companies like Strike 3 Holdings could sue HUNDREDS of defendants IN ONE LAWSUIT FILING instead of suing ONE “John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address XYZ” defendant in ONE $400 federal court lawsuit.

          As you can see, the filing fees to sue a defendant are cheap — whether Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits are filed in federal court, or obscenely moreso, whether they file the lawsuit in a state or county court under some obscure state law.

          For that $400 filing fee in federal court, (or for that $350 filing fee in a state court), Strike 3 Holdings LLC hopes to achieve a return of TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS in settlement money to Strike 3 Holdings LLC in return for that small $350-$400 filing fee.

          Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

          REASON #3: Strike 3 Holdings LLC odds of success are high because they sue downloaders who likely downloaded their copyrighted titles.

          I am saying this again — STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS ODDS OF SUCCESS ARE HIGH BECAUSE BECAUSE THEY SUE DOWNLOADERS WHO LIKELY DOWNLOADED THEIR COPYRIGHTED TITLES.

          Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuits are not filed until they have accumulated enough “damages” to ask for a large settlement which is multiplied by how many titles they believe you downloaded.

          Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuits Surveillance Technology Monitoring  - TheDigitalArtist / Pixabay
          TheDigitalArtist / Pixabay

          Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuits use an “EXHIBIT A” spreadsheet and your IP Address history to prove their claims of infringement.

          I originally went into too much depth discussing this topic. If you are interested in the topic, please click here to read what I wrote about Strike 3 Holdings’ EXHIBIT A spreadsheets.

          REASON #4: Because most Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuits settle out of court (and those that do not settle do not go to trial).

          It would be a terrible hinderance to the Strike 3 Holdings lawsuit strategy if each and every accused defendant proceeded with litigation and eventually trial, even if they did the downloading of Strike 3 Holdings’ copyrighted videos.

          Why? Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuits really are an out-of-court settlement scheme. They have a limited number of attorneys compared to the hundreds of lawsuits that are filed every single month.

          Strike 3 Holdings LLC simply do not have the resources to push each and every defendant through the federal court system, from pre-trial hearings to discovery, to summary judgement motions, to trial and onward.

          If every defendant fought his case — guilty or not — Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuits would end tomorrow.

          Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

          Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuits Knights House Robbery Fighter  - Dieterich01 / Pixabay
          Dieterich01 / Pixabay

          However, let’s be real. Think of the prisoner’s dilemma. Nobody wants to be the one person who takes their case to trial. These lawsuits are REAL copyright infringement lawsuits filed with the full force and enforcement of the federal courts.

          A $150,000 judgement will destroy anyone’s financial future, and this is enough of a deterrent to prevent each and every person from proceeding with litigation.

          Even if a small handful of you retain me to litigate your cases — even if you did the downloads — it’s terrible for me to say this, but for the same price you would have paid me to take you through the pre-trial stages of litigating this case, you probably could have settled the claims against you for less money.

          This is why I personally find these cases as evil (in a morally “good vs. evil” kind of way). The little guy has no choice except to resolve the claims out of court [if he did the downloads], or he is at the mercy of the plaintiff attorneys who will decide how far into the lawsuit they want to push him without him being able to fight back (or to pay an attorney to represent him to fight back).

          Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

          What if I did not download the Strike 3 Holdings videos?

          This is only if the accused defendant actually did the downloads. If he did not do the downloads, then the process of being found not guilty in these lawsuits is VERY EASY (and I could explain them to you).

          Simply put, it is not your job to prove that you DID NOT download a particular video. It is THEIR JOB to prove that you did. The Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuits do this with your testimony at the deposition under oath (e.g., “sitting in front of a court reporter and answering their questions.”)

          Gnome Character Dwarf Cartoon  - Jazella / Pixabay
          Jazella / Pixabay

          Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

          Enlisting the help of politicians and federal judges.

          In sum, until some politician gets involved and stops these bittorrent-based copyright infringement lawsuits (or, call them “piracy” lawsuits or whatever), these lawsuits will continue because it is too profitable for the copyright holder to file these lawsuit and solicit settlements in return for not proceeding with litigation and eventually trial.

          We have been successful over the years in changing the minds of federal judges one at a time — see our “policy letter” that we used to send to judges — and we have been successful in showing up in court and explaining that the copyright holder has no interest or ability to proceed with this case, and they are only using this lawsuit to force a settlement from the defendant — but this is a long and tedious road.

          Judges own their own courtrooms, and they allow these cases to proceed. Some don’t — many don’t — but as soon as you receive an ISP Subpoena Notification Letter in the mail that you were implicated in a copyright infringement lawsuit against you, your judge has let the case proceed.

          Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

          REASON #5: It is easier for a federal judge to let this case proceed rather than stop it because these cases settle out of court eventually with minimal effort.

          I would hate to blame the judges for allowing the thousands of Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits to proceed, but really, with lawmakers which are not focused on copyright issues, for the last decade+, they have been the only gatekeepers who are legally able to stop these lawsuits. They have not.

          I expect that since most Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits settle out of court (for “guilty” defendants), and the others are dismissed (e.g., after the deposition where the defendant did not do the downloads), these cases ALMOST NEVER GO TO TRIAL.

          So as long as the judge rubber-stamps the case, gives the plaintiff freedom to do whatever they want to do, the case will be dismissed on its own in just a few months with little-to-no effort by the judge.

          Problem solved for the judge. Problem solved for the copyright holder. The little guy gets financially destroyed in the process, and this is truly unfortunate.

          Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

          Fantasy Cave Troll Girl Nightmare  - Willgard / Pixabay
          Willgard / Pixabay

          FINAL REASON #6: Because we do not value our privacy, and we let ourselves be tracked and sued. Because we do not protect our internet traffic with a VPN.

          HOW STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LAWSUITS COULD GO AWAY FOREVER. USE A VPN.

          Disclaimer: Understand that as an attorney, I am never advocating that anyone break the law. I am also not advocating that anyone download someone else’s copyrighted videos without a license. Stealing is wrong.

          I think I have made my point with the headings. The final reason why Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits continue is because we do not value our personal privacy. We do not take steps to prevent others from snooping on our activities, and we do not protect our internet traffic with a VPN.

          I have said this for years — IF everyone used a VPN to hide their IP address, then these cases would stop literally overnight. Most VPN providers are outside of the US, and they do not keep logs on their users’ activities.

          If there is an ISP subpoena sent to a VPN provider about a particular account, and that VPN provider does not keep logs on who was assigned a particular IP address at a particular date and time, there can be NO CONNECTION between the downloader and the IP address he used when connecting to the VPN.

          Hence, the copyright holder would never have been able to determine who was the ISP account subscriber assigned a particular IP address because it would have been the VPN’s protected IP address that connected to the Bittorrent swarm, not the IP address assigned to the subscriber by the ISP.

          Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

          There is so much to say here, but this article is merely discussing the financial benefits to the Strike 3 Holdings LLC plaintiff to keep filing these Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits forever (and why I believe they will never stop suing downloaders).

          The best I could do is suggest a way that there are no longer any downloaders to receive their lawsuits. If everyone used proper VPNs that protected the identities of their VPN subscribers, then these lawsuits would end overnight.

          The reality, however, is that there will always be DNS leaks even when using a VPN (this is avoidable with a kill switch), and there will be individuals who do not value their privacy or individuals who think they will never get caught downloading copyrighted materials.

          There will also be an endless supply of internet users who are simply unaware that it is wrong to download copyrighted videos without a license, so these Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits will likely continue forever.

          Fish Silver Sardine Aquatic  - pixaoppa / Pixabay
          pixaoppa / Pixabay

          IN CONCLUSION:

          Obviously I would like to see these bittorrent-based copyright infringement “John Doe Subscriber” lawsuits disappear overnight. But the reality is that they are here to stay because there will always be an endless supply of potential defendants to sue for copyright infringement.

          I would love for there to be a capitalist response to the piracy problem — perhaps make copyrighted content more readily available and for cheaper. Perhaps Strike 3 Holdings, LLC and similar companies need to find a more profitable way to sell access to their videos without having to resort to copyright infringement lawsuits, apparent extortion, and heavy-handed settlement demands.

          For now, the Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits seem to be the most profitable method of enforcing their copyrights, so I expect that they will continue for the time being, and this is truly unfortunate.

          Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

          FOR IMMEDIATE CONTACT WITH AN ATTORNEY: To set up a free consultation to speak to an attorney about your Strike 3 Holdings, LLC lawsuit, click here.  Lastly, please feel free to e-mail me at info[at] cashmanlawfirm.com, or call 713-364-3476 to speak to me now about your case (I do prefer you read the articles first), or to get your questions answered.

          CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

            NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

            Book a Phone Consultation with a Cashman Law Firm Attorney

            Skip to content