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.

      Discussing a motion to quash a subpoena filed in form by a “John Doe.”

      We Focus on Subpoena Notices.

      Our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC firm is focusing our efforts in representing clients who have received subpoenas in the following movie-based bittorrent lawsuits.  In each case, deciding whether to file a motion to quash a subpoena issued to the ISP (and forcing it to reveal the identity of the subscriber who is sued) is one of the most important decisions that client will make in the course of his lawsuit.

      “John Doe” cases and what we know about them:

      RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT (‘EVIL TWIN’ OF CEG-TEK) DMCA SETTLEMENT LETTERS

      MALIBU MEDIA, LLC (“X-ART.COM”) LAWSUIT SUBPOENA CASES

      UN4 PRODUCTIONS, INC. (“BOYKA:UNLIMITED”) LAWSUIT SUBPOENA CASES

      ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. (“MECHANIC:RESURRECTION”) LAWSUIT SUBPOENA CASES

      *NEW* HEADHUNTER, LLC (“A FAMILY MAN”) LAWSUIT SUBPOENA CASES

      I.T. PRODUCTIONS, LLC (“I.T.” MOVIE) LAWSUIT SUBPOENA CASES

      COOK PRODUCTIONS, LLC (“MR. CHURCH” MOVIE) LAWSUIT SUBPOENA CASES

      THE GREAT MPAA / RIAA SCHEME TO BREAK COPYRIGHT LAW (AN OPINION PIECE)

      Why discussing a motion to quash a subpoena is relevant in a bittorrent lawsuit.

      In each of these lawsuit subpoena cases, a movie company or copyright holder filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against ISP account holders.  Judges allowed the copyright holders to send subpoenas to the account holders, and the ISPs sent out lawsuit subpoena notices to inform the account holder that they have been implicated as a John Doe Defendant in this case, and that the subpoena obligates them to hand over your contact information to the plaintiff attorney unless you file a motion to quash the subpoena.

      Whether and how to file a motion to quash a subpoena sent to your ISP is possibly the biggest decision you will make in your “John Doe” lawsuit.  There are no motion to quash forms to fill out, and a motion to quash a subpoena should be filed by an attorney.

      Benefits in filing a motion to quash a subpoena.

      The benefits of filing a motion to quash a lawsuit subpoena are numerous.  If successful, a motion to quash can possibly stop your ISP from disclosing your identity to the copyright troll who is suing you.  Without your identity information, those who have sent the lawsuit subpoenas won’t know your identity, and thus they cannot name and serve you (a.k.a. ‘sue you’) as a defendant in the case.

      In good form, an attorney can file a motion to quash a lawsuit subpoena when the accused defendant lives outside of the state in which the lawsuit was filed.  There are also other reasons in good form to file a motion to quash a lawsuit subpoena, namely, where the lawsuit subpoena itself is defective, and for other reasons I will be discussing in detail in the coming weeks.

      Risks in filing a motion to quash a subpoena.

      There are downsides or risks in filing a motion to quash a lawsuit subpoena, namely, if you live in the state in which you were sued, convincing a judge to disallow the release of your information is an uphill battle.  Some judges do not allow a John Doe Defendant to file a motion to quash a subpoena without the defendant listing his real name on the form.  This reveals the identity of the John Doe Defendants, and makes the attempt to stop the ISP from revealing your identity to the plaintiff attorney in vain, because the plaintiff attorneys see the motions to quash because the court filings are public information.

      Objections your opposing counsel will bring to oppose your motion to quash.

      After filing a motion to quash the subpoena, the copyright holder’s will object to your motion to quash.  They will argue that your “John Doe” entity is merely a placeholder, and that you are not a true defendant until the plaintiff attorney decides to name and serve you as a defendant (meaning, someone comes to your home, knocks on your door, and serves you with a copy of the complaint).  Thus, he will claim that you do not have [what is called in the legal world] ‘standing’ to file the motion to quash.

      Motions to quash a subpoena will likely become a part of our defense of our clients.  Current side strategies to filing a motion to quash.

      Without abandoning this topic (our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC elves are working on a strategy to allow defendants to file a motion to quash a lawsuit subpoena regardless of in what state or federal court that lawsuit is filed), there is an alternative to filing a motion to quash a lawsuit subpoena, and that is to file [what is called in the legal world] a ‘protective order’ in order to keep the identity of the John Doe Defendant anonymous.

      Judges will often approve such a request to keep your information private and anonymous, and thus as a side strategy to filing a motion to quash the subpoena, your attorney (us, or anyone else) can file a motion for a protective order so that you won’t need to worry that the plaintiff attorney will expose your identity to the public by naming and serving you without giving you the chance to first mount a proper defense.

      If you have any questions about what we are doing, please feel free to contact us at 713-364-3476, or to book an appointment to speak to us about your lawsuit, click the button below:

      Book a Free Consultation Now To Discuss Whether To File a Motion to Quash a Subpoena in your lawsuit.

      TorrentLawyer Blog Recent Articles

      On our TorrentLawyer blog, the focus is to provide quality educational content to internet users who are accused of downloading copyrighted content in a “John Doe” copyright infringement bittorrent lawsuit.  Below are recent articles organized by topic.

      MOVIE SUBPOENA LAWSUIT ARTICLES

      Why bittorrent-based copyright infringement lawsuits are questionable.
      – Unscrupulous attorneys (‘copyright trolls’) accuse defendants without researching whether there is any valid evidence, and their lawsuits are circumstantial.

      MALIBU MEDIA (“X-ART.COM” ADULT FILM SITERIP) SUBPOENA LAWSUITS

      Turnkey ‘Settlement Factory’ Defense Attorneys and Malibu Media Settlement Amounts,” written on 3/28/2017.

      Which Lipscomb attorneys stayed with Malibu Media, LLC?” written on 3/13/2017.
      -Malibu Media “old guard” attorneys Patrick Cerillo and Jon Hoppe enjoy preserved territory, even if they file fewer cases than newer attorney Jaqueline James.

      Confirmed: Malibu Media invests $400 filing fees @$20K/month,” written on 3/13/2017.
      – Continuing our 2016 analysis, Malibu Media LLC is still spending on average $20,000 in $400 filing fees plus the cost of subpoenas for each John Doe lawsuit.

      2017 Malibu Media – Which Attorneys Filed Cases and Where?” written on 3/13/2017.
      – Malibu Media, LLC is splitting new lawsuits between attorneys Jacqueline James, Patrick Cerillo, and Andrew Kumar to sue John Doe Defendants in NY/NJ/CT/TX.

      MECHANIC RESURRECTION MOVIE SUBPOENA LAWSUITS (ME2 PRODUCTIONS)

      ME2 subpoenas due today.  ISPs will comply (and other FAQs.)
      – Today is the due date for a number of subpoenas sent to the Comcast ISP for the ME2 Productions, Inc. copyright lawsuits filed across the US

      Did ME2 Attorney Fischman disclose real Interested Parties?
      – We question whether Gary Fischman properly disclosed the real interested parties in the ME2 Productions John Doe lawsuits, or whether he listed a shell company.

      Analyzing the mindset of the ME2 Productions TX attorneys.
      – Digging into the mindset of a copyright troll attorney in the context of the Mechanic:Resurrection movie lawsuit.

      ME2 Productions Bittorrent Lawsuits Have Come To Houston, TX
      – ME2 Productions via Attorney Gary Fischman sued John Doe Defendants for Copyright Infringement in Texas.

      A FAMILY MAN (2016) MOVIE SUBPOENA LAWSUITS (HEADHUNTER, LLC)

      North Carolina Headhunter Subpoenas are Due on 8/5
      – AT&T U-verse subscribers in NC are all facing an 8/5 deadline to quash ISP subpoenas sent by HEADHUNTER, LLC.

      Everything You Need to Know In One Place About Your HEADHUNTER, LLC (“A Family Man”) Movie Lawsuit (FAQ)

      I.T. MOVIE SUBPOENA LAWSUITS (I.T. PRODUCTIONS)

      TX Judge Hughes Disallows I.T. Productions From ‘Suing Does’
      – Texas Federal Judge Hughes prevents I.T. Productions attorney Gary Fischman to refer to ISP subscriber recipients as “John Does”, but rather as “IP Subscriber.”

      I.T. Productions, LLC should really be called “I, Troll.”
      – I.T. Productions has sent subpoenas to Comcast and other ISPs to disclose the identities of the John Doe Defendants accused of downloading the I.T. movie.

      MR. CHURCH MOVIE SUBPOENA LAWSUITS (COOK PRODUCTIONS)

      Cook Productions ‘dipping toes’ into federal court lawsuits.
      – Cook Productions sending subpoenas to ISPs and suing John Doe Defendants for copyright infringement for the download of their “Mr. Church” movie.

      SOFTWARE PIRACY LAWSUITS

      SIEMENS PLM SOFTWARE PIRACY LAWSUITS IN TEXAS

      Siemens Surprises John Does With $50K+ Settlement Requests
      – Siemens appears to be soliciting business-level licenses from John Doe Defendants which can cost $30,000+ for each ‘seat’ or license.

      How an attorney should handle a Siemens PLM Software Lawsuit
      – Steps an attorney representing a Siemens PLM lawsuit would take to represent a client in this software piracy case.

      Siemens PLM converting NX software pirates into customers.
      – Siemens PLM software piracy lawsuits are focusing on engineers who used NX Mach 3 pirated software versions and are converting them into paying license holders.

      Software Develops Now Tracking the USE of the Software
      – Software Developers are now sending early discovery subpoena letters through the ISPs alleging pirated software is being USED AND TRACKED to prove infringement.

      ENCRYPTION AND TECHNOLOGY

      Why I would not put Kodi on an Amazon Fire TV Stick
      – Using Kodi on an Amazon Fire Stick might not get you sued for copyright infringement, but it puts you at risk by exposing your IP address and your activities.

      When is it too late to hire a lawyer in a John Doe lawsuit?
      – The best time to hire an attorney ris immediately when the ISP sends the subpoena letter indicating you have been implicated as a John Doe in the lawsuit

      DMCA SETTLEMENT LETTERS

      RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT (rightsenforcement.com)

      WHAT I KNOW ABOUT RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT
      – A complete write-up of everything I have compiled on the RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT copyright enforcement company, and their likely DMCA and litigation tactics.

      RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT is a Reverse-Engineered CEG-TEK Evil Twin
      – Clarifying what exactly is RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT, who is Carl Crowell, and how to handle the DMCA copyright infringement notices received from your ISP.

      Porn Sites Sending DMCA Letters Through RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT
      – RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT is sending DMCA settlement demand notices for adult film porn companies such as Reality Kings, Brazzers, and Digital Playground.

      SHOULD I IGNORE A “RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.COM” DMCA NOTICE?
      – If I receive a DMCA settlement demand letter from RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT, should I ignore it?

      WHAT IF MY RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT DMCA NOTICE DUE DATE EXPIRED?
      – What happens after a RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT DMCA settlement demand letter expires, and should you worry about getting sued immediately after a missing a deadline.

      IS IT SAFE TO LOG IN TO RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.COM?
      – Analysis of whether it is safe to log in with your case number and IP address to the RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT website.

      RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT’S KNOWN ‘MOVIE’ CLIENT LIST.
      – RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT was kind enough to give us a preview of which movies they will sue people for in the coming year.

      WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT AND YOUR ISP?
      – Revisiting the RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN AN ISP AND A COPYRIGHT ENFORCEMENT COMPANY, I come to different conclusions with RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT as I did last year.

      RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT DMCA letters like CEG-TEK but with teeth.
      – RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT appears to be CEG-TEK but with a desire to sue ISP subscribers who receive DMCA notices but choose to ignore them.

      RIAA / MPAA ACTIVITIES

      Why I Believe the MPAA/RIAA Schemed to Break Copyright Law
      – Yesterday I wrote an article suggesting the MPAA/RIAA is behind both the movie AND the porn-based lawsuits.  Today I explain how I arrived at that conclusion.

      The Great MPAA/RIAA Scheme to Defraud Copyright Law.
      – How the MPAA/RIAA appear to have made use of pornography-based copyright infringement lawsuits to pave the way for their “John Doe” movie cases.

      Is it ‘coincidence’ early bittorrent cases were porn-based?
      – Discussing the evolution of piracy from 1994-2017, we uncover a conspiratorial plot that early porn cases were planned as a precursor for movie-based lawsuits.

      MISCELLANEOUS

      A Thank You! to bloggers who have made our site possible.
      – Taking a quick moment to thank those who help fight against copyright trolls.

      CONTACT US

      FOR IMMEDIATE CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: To set up a free consultation to speak to an attorney about your matter, 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: Alternatively, sometimes people just like to contact me using one of these forms.  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.

        BACK TO TOP
        © 2010-2022 by Cashman Law Firm, PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

        Skip to content