Siemens Industry Software Inc. Piracy Lawsuit

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

SIEMENS INDUSTRY SOFTWARE INC. — SOFTWARE LAWSUITS: WAVE 8 (early 2020).

Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Does 1-150 (4:20-cv-00798), 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 Riddle and Andrew Bluebond of Reed Smith LLP are still involved in these lawsuits; James Quail is no longer with their law firm, but a new name has appeared — Katherine Mary Geldmacher — I assume she will be taking over a large part of reviewing the claims against the accused defendants.  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 1-7, 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.

Now we are in Wave 8 (2020).  In this wave, there are two lawsuits; one has 150 John Doe Defendants, and the other has only 10 John Doe Defendants.  I do not yet know whether these 150 John Doe Defendants are from the same pool as the earlier lawsuits were filed, or whether these are from an entirely new pool of accused infringers.  I suspect that the 150 defendants in the (4:20-cv-00798) case are all new defendants, and that 10 defendants in the (4:20-cv-00801) case are old defendants who did not settle the claims against them.

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.