Siemens INDUSTRY SOFTWARE INC. converting NX software pirates into customers.

Siemens PLM | Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Piracy Lawsuit

Siemens Industry Software Inc. has been suing engineers as “John Doe” Defendants

Siemens Industry Software Inc. has been suing engineers as ‘John Doe’ Defendants in federal courts.  The lawsuits are for the piracy of their NX software since it was in version 7 (so far, I have seen claims against users of NX 7, NX 8, NX 8.5?, but not yet for NX 9, NX 10, or NX 11 — all of which are available on the bittorrent networks). Most recently, I have seen lawsuits focusing in on the unlawful use of the Solid Edge ST9 Foundation software.

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

In June, I wrote the “What to do about the Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Does case (TX)” article which provided specific information surrounding the lawsuit from information acquired from the Siemens Industry Software lawyers themselves. However, back then, there was much still unknown, and now (almost 6 months later), I have a much better idea of how this is happening, what Siemens Industry Software is doing to catch those using the software illegally, whether claims of piracy are leaking over to the employers of the engineers who use the pirated software at their workplace, and how they are handling claims against those defendants, both in and out of the courtroom.

What you need to know about these lawsuits is that the Siemens Industry Software Inc. lawsuits still deceptively look like “copyright troll” lawsuits, but they are not. I will get into this momentarily.

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

*UPDATED* LIST OF FEDERAL COURT CASES FILED:

IN THE CONNECTICUT DISTRICT COURT:
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. et al v. Demin (Case No. 3:16-cv-00553)

IN THE NEW YORK SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT:
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. v. Does 1 – 100 (Case No. 1:14-cv-01926)
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. v. Does 1-50 (Case No. 1:11-cv-08469)

IN THE OHIO SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT:
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software In v. Manufacturing Services International, Inc. (Case No. 3:16-cv-00182)

IN THE PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COURT:
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. v. Does 1-50 (Case No. 2:12-cv-06795)

IN THE TEXAS EASTERN DISTRICT COURT:
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. v. BTL Machine, Inc. (Case No. 4:14-cv-00506)
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 4:15-cv-00582)
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. v. Mercury Metal Forming Technologies, LLC (Case No. 4:14-cv-00002)
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does (Case No. 4:15-cv-00017)
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. TWIVision Engineering Group, LLC (Case No. 6:11-cv-00679)

IN THE TEXAS SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT:
Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Does 1-150 (Case No. 4:20-cv-00798)
Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Does 1-10 (Case No. 4:20-cv-00801)
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-118 (Case No. 4:19-cv-02448)
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-150 (Case No. 4:19-cv-00129)
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-107 (Case No. 4:18-cv-02344)
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-97 (Case No. 4:18-cv-00397)
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-93 (Case No. 4:17-cv-01796)
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-100 (Case No. 4:16-cv-03552)

Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. v. Does 1-100 (Case No. 4:16-cv-01422)

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

JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS ARE GETTING CAUGHT THROUGH THE *USE* OF THE SOFTWARE, NOT THROUGH THE ACQUISITION OF THE SOFTWARE.

In September of 2016, I was still piecing together how a person can get caught not through the download of pirated software via BitTorrent, but through the USE of that software (that article is still available for viewing, although the picture is more clear to us now as I describe my current understanding of it here, specifically tailored to the Siemens Industry Software Inc. Software-based lawsuits).

As we’ve learned, most Siemens Industry Software Inc. NX Software available for download on the piracy websites comes with a serial number (“SN”) and an “activator” which modifies the application to allow it to accept a random password that the SN activator generated.  (Not relevant, but still interesting to know:  The serial number + details about the computer or laptop upon which it is installed creates a “Unique ID” which can be checked with valid IDs on the server; this circumvents a computer from using a “valid” registration code for a computer for which that registration code was not licensed to.  Thus, even though the serial number activator provided the software with a valid serial number, the company servers know the software is pirated.)

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

This application modifier is known as a “crack,” and software which is altered to accept the serial number generated by the crack thinks locally (that is, on the laptop in which it was installed) that the software was properly acquired, purchased, and lawfully registered. Most cracks also revert the executable file used to run the file back to its original unaltered state once the software has been registered.

The problem is that even cracked software connects to the internet, for example, to access libraries in the program file which are stored on the company’s servers. In other words, for economy purposes, it would take up too much hard drive space to store every piece of a large multi-gigabyte-sized program on each person’s hard drive. Thus, companies now store core components of their software on their servers. This is generally referred to as “cloud-based software,” but what exactly is stored online with the Siemens Industry software is still unknown (and they keep this purposefully undisclosed because they track the IP addresses of the computers who run the software and access these files online).

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

EVEN IF THE SOFTWARE HAS BEEN REGISTERED using a “SN and an activator,” (as provided on the bittorrent websites), when the software connects to Siemens Industry Software Inc.’s servers to access pieces of the software to run, if the registration code (or more accurately, the Unique ID, as described above) does not match a valid paid registration from their own records, that software unbeknownst to the user is flagged as being unlicensed, and the IP address is recorded.  We now understand that the software user is not made aware of this until he is implicated as a John Doe Defendant in a copyright infringement lawsuit.

EVERY TIME that user uses the NX software, another entry of unlicensed use is recorded (date, time, etc.) and the IP address of the internet connection used when accessing the software is also logged. This is how a Siemens Industry Software Inc. lawsuit against a John Doe engineer can leak over to his employer receiving letters for the infringement of their software, even when the software was acquired at the accused John Doe engineer’s home.

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

WHO IS THE TARGET OF THESE LAWSUITS.

I mentioned above that the Siemens Industry Software Inc. lawsuits look deceptively like “copyright troll” lawsuits, but in hindsight, we have learned they are not. Rather than extorting a few thousand dollars from every John Doe Defendant regardless of guilt, Siemens is looking for a particular defendant.

Siemens Industry Software wants to find the engineer who is providing “paid” engineering services, either 1) from his own laptop in his own small business, or 2) from his employer’s place of business where unbeknownst to the employer, that employee is bringing his unlicensed software to his workplace and using that pirated software at work [noting that his work does not own or pay for a license for the software].

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

In other words, Siemens Industry Software wants to find those engineers who are using their software but who are not paying a license for the use of that software, and they want to turn that enterprising engineer into a paying customer. Moreso, Siemens Industry Software wants to find that company (the employer of that engineer) who is benefiting from the unlicensed use of their software, and to turn that corporate entity into a “volume license” paying customer. This is where the “big bucks” are made.

WHAT IF YOU ARE A STUDENT?

Students are a different story than paid engineers. Just as law students are fed unlimited free case lookup services and are encouraged with points and free coffee mugs for using as much of services as they can [only to be hit with a multi-thousand-dollar subscription upon graduation for what a few days ago was free (think, WestLaw, LexisNexis)], engineering students are seen as the same “cash cows” for Siemens Industry Software Inc. as law students are seen by the WestLaw/Nexis case lookup services. A poor engineering student today is seen by Siemens as a future subscription-based customer for the rest of his working career, and if not, that engineer’s employer will be a “volume license” customer which is even more profitable for Siemens.

If you have not yet figured this out, I have found that engineering students (and those individuals who are smart enough to figure out that the NX software has specific applications for use in conjunction with their 3D printers) find themselves in the spider web of these lawsuits more than anyone else. These individuals ‘mess around’ with the software in ways which do not provide them an income (what we call “non-revenue-producing use,” or “personal use”). Rather, they use the NX software (or more recently, the Solid Edge ST9 software) to gain professional skills knowing that if and when these students do find employment, use of the Siemens PLM software will become a necessity. So the students download it, play around with it, then get sued and call me fearing that their professional lives are over.

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

But no attorney at Reed Smith LLP — not Robert Riddle, Andrew Bluebond, or most recently, Kate Geldmacher… and certainly not Steven Dietz — wants to end the financial life of a future customer. Aside from the fact that a student has no assets to seize, it is my understanding that Steven Dietz would rather turn that student into a loyal customer. For this reason, I have been able to accomplish resolutions of claims with students in a way in which is simply not available to the engineer who uses Siemens Industry Software Inc.’s unlicensed software for profit.

That is not to say that an engineer won’t be able to “get out” of this lawsuit — it simply takes a bit more work, perhaps paying Siemens Industry Software a settlement fee based on their particular circumstances (read that again carefully), and based on what software was allegedly used, what module add-ons were used or needed, whether the use was for personal or business reasons, and whether use of the software is still needed in the future.

The Engineer-Student Roommate Scenario

Lastly, [since I am listing scenarios I’ve seen over the past few months,] non-engineering students who have roommates or suitemates who are engineering students also have been the recipients of the subpoena letters from their ISP (most recently, Comcast). While Siemens does not see the non-engineering student or enterprising 3D printer genius as a future customer, your engineering roommate or suitemate is still seen as such, and thus involving him or her as part of the solution can easily fix a $150,000 copyright infringement lawsuit against you.

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

In sum, Siemens wants to convert those illegally using their software into customers.

So as you see, Siemens Industry Software Inc. looks like a copyright troll, but they are not. Their attorneys are often not interested in merely a settlement, but in converting the accused John Doe software user into a customer (or, as a future customer). This means that settlements are accepted where there is a future benefit to Siemens Industry Software, as they are not looking to use the lawsuits as a means to “cash out” or to “punish pirates.” Obviously this could change, and there have been circumstances where it is more feasible to simply defend a client by representing him or her in the federal court rather than having him agree to anything he or she did not do, but for the most part, Siemens Industry Software Inc. seems to be straightforward on what they seek to accomplish with these lawsuits.

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

OTHER ARTICLES ON THE SIEMENS INDUSTRY SOFTWARE INC. CASES:

How an attorney should handle a Siemens Industry Software Inc. lawsuit, on 1/11/2017.

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.

The Siemens Industry Software Case IS a Bittorrent Case, on 6/20/2016.

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


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 Paul Beik names and serves Malibu Media LLC defendants.

    malibu-media-case-consolidations

    Paul Beik (Paul S. Beik of the Beik Law Firm PLLC) is a Texas-based plaintiff attorney who has “served” many defendants in Texas lawsuits for his Malibu Media LLC client (“served” as in someone knocking on a defendant’s door in a bittorrent copyright litigation lawsuit and handing the former John Doe Defendant a copy of the complaint; not “served” as in “thousands served” in a McDonald’s hamburger way). [Sorry for the play on words — that came out when editing this article.]

    Paul Beik has been naming and serving Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe defendants since 3/28/2018 (or at least 3/28/18 was the first time I contacted him before having a client served; prior to this, his predecessors Andrew Kumar and Michael Lowenberg of the Lowenberg Law Firm PLLC filed Malibu lawsuits in TX since 10/27/2016), but unlike Beik’s cases, their John Doe defendants were not regularly named and served.

    More generally, Malibu Media LLC has likely filed over ten thousand copyright infringement lawsuits against anonymous John Doe defendants since 2012 (I stopped counting in 2016, when Malibu temporarily stopped filing lawsuits, and even then, there were already 6,000+ cases filed across the US).

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

    Prior to Paul Beik taking over as Texas local counsel for Malibu Media LLC, while some Texas John Doe defendants were named and served here and there, most of them historically were never served. The reason for this is that Malibu Media LLC’s general counsel (currently represented by the Lomnitzer Law Firm in Florida) always let the local copyright attorneys (here, Paul Beik) decide how far into litigation they are willing to go — specifically whether they are willing to have the John Doe Defendants named and served.

    How Malibu Media LLC lets their attorneys “grow” on the job.

    [Again, the header is not to be taken out of context given the subject matter of the Malibu Media LLC adult film cases.]

    Malibu Media LLC’s general counsel often hires lawyers in each state who know federal procedure [but who do not necessarily know any copyright law]. They often let that attorney “learn on the job” by following instructions, templates, and scripts I believe are provided to every new Malibu Media LLC local counsel. I have referred to these new plaintiff attorneys in the past as “fresh meat,” because the filings in every Malibu Media LLC case look exactly the same as the filings I have seen in thousands of Malibu cases over the years filed in federal courts in California, New York, Michigan, and across the US.

    I have always called Malibu Media LLC cases “a settlement extortion scheme.” For years (prior to Paul Beik taking over the Texas Malibu Media cases, Malibu Media LLC cases were filed against anonymous John Doe Defendants, and they were dismissed as John Does (in my opinion, because of the squeamishness of previous Texas-based Malibu Media LLC attorneys to name and serve defendants and move forward against them in litigation). Not so with Paul Beik of Beik Law Firm PLLC.

    Paul Beik has served Malibu Media LLC Texas defendants in the US District ,Court for the Southern District of Texas with regularity. In filing the lawsuit, he uses the same (identical) wording that other Malibu Media LLC cases use in other federal courts making an attorney who is not paying attention think he is inexperienced [that link (above) merely goes to a reference to “settlement factories,” described below]. Even if you look at Paul Beik’s case dockets, his Texas-based Malibu Media LLC cases appear to be nearly identical to every other Malibu Media LLC case filed across the US.

    However, unlike many other “copyright troll” plaintiff attorneys, Paul Beik is not afraid to name and serve a defendant.

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

    Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on naming and serving a defendant (the 90-day rule).

    The reason this is relevant is because 90 days after a complaint is filed in a federal court, FRCP Rule 4(m) gives a plaintiff attorney (here, Paul Beik) 90 days to amend the complaint and “name and serve” a John Doe defendant.

    Beik could also dismiss the case before the 90 days have elapsed [which almost never happens], or he can ask the court for an extension of time to have that Texas defendant named and served [that happens].

    The point here is that Paul Beik is under a procedural deadline to name and serve a defendant. Thus, whatever so-called “anonymous” settlement he can pull from the Malibu Media LLC John Doe defendant before the 90 days have elapsed, his client wants him to take.

    Unfortunately for some John Doe Defendants, when they do not respond to his requests for settlement or they do not hire an attorney to represent them in this case, as a matter of procedure, instead of dismissing the case without prejudice and saying to the accused defendant “just kidding,” Paul Beik moves forward with litigation and has that Texas defendant named and served .

    This is relevant because in litigation, there will become a time where the question of “whether the named and served Texas defendant actually downloaded Malibu Media’s copyrighted titles” becomes relevant. This happens in a deposition, where the defendant is placed under oath in front of a court reporter and the plaintiff attorney takes his testimony. *THIS* is where Paul Beik succeeds in forcing a settlement from a named and served Texas defendant who did not previously settle the claims against him.

    NOTE: *THIS* (deposition) is also the moment where the named and served Texas John Doe Defendant is dismissed from liability [to avoid having his client pay the defendant’s attorney fees].

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

    Paul Beik Malibu Media Texas settlement scheme
    Perlinator / Pixabay

    HOW PAUL BEIK HAS MALIBU MEDIA LLC DEFENDANTS SERVED.

    The complaint and request to disclose identity of subscriber.

    First, Beik files the complaint alleging copyright infringement of Malibu Media’s copyright adult film titles. He files the lawsuit against ONE anonymous “John Doe” defendant (who lives in the Texas state, so there is no motion to quash to file [the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant]). Beik mentions to the court that he does not yet know the identity of the defendant, and he asks the court to provide him an order to command the Comcast ISP (or AT&T ISP) to disclose the identity of the alleged downloader of Malibu Media LLC’s copyrighted titles.

    Because courts are friendly to copyright holders, the Texas judges grant Paul Beik his request and order the ISPs to provide him the information that he needs.

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

    The subpoena sent to the ISP ordering it to reveal the subscriber’s identity.

    Paul Beik then forwards a subpoena to the Comcast (or whichever) ISP, ordering the ISP to turn over the identity (and whatever else is approved by the court) of the account holder who was assigned the IP address at the time that the downloading of Malibu Media LLC’s adult titles took place.

    The ISP’s duty to protect their customer and steps they take.

    The ISPs are under a duty [an order, signed by the federal judge] to hand over this information to the plaintiff attorney (here, Paul Beik). To protect their customer, the ISP sends over [what I call] an ISP Subpoena Letter informing the Texas account holder that he has been implicated as a defendant in the Malibu Media LLC lawsuit.

    The ISP Subpoena Letter also informs the account subscriber that if they wish to stop them from handing over their information, they may file a motion to quash (they call it “an objection with the court”). A motion to quash, if successful, would prevent the ISP from handing over the account holder’s information to Beik Law Firm PLLC (the plaintiff attorney — Paul Beik’s office — NOT to the court).

    You can read more into motions to quash here (this isn’t the place to discuss this topic), but the jist of a motion to quash is that it tells the US District Court that it does not have “personal jurisdiction” over the defendant. This primarily occurs if the defendant lives outside of the state in which they were sued.

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

    Paul Beik is dangerous to John Doe defendants because he has them named and served.

    Unlike many other Malibu Media LLC attorneys who are running a settlement extortion scheme (“settle whether you did it or not”), Paul Beik actually takes the additional step of having the defendant who did not settle the claims again him named and served.

    In other words, if that Texas-based John Doe Defendant does not settle the claims against him or her, Paul Beik will amend the complaint and will add the actual ISP account subscriber’s name and address to the complaint. This forces the now “named and served” defendant into litigation, where they have 21 days to file an answer with the court or face a default judgement against them.

    This is where Paul Beik takes the Malibu Media LLC cases (which for years, I considered nothing more than a “bluff”) one step further than many others — he actually has his Texas John Doe Defendants named and served, forcing them into litigation whether they like it or not.

    Now obviously the purpose of this article was to identify Paul Beik as a Malibu Media LLC attorney, and to note that he DOES name and serve defendants. “Check.” This is not to say that he will not settle a case after a defendant is named and served — he will still settle a case, as this is the ultimate reason he has named and served the defendant [a settlement is more valuable to Malibu Media LLC than a judgement of $150,000 which they will never collect]. However, I simply want to point out that Paul Beik does name and serve defendants.

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

    A quick note about out-of-state settlement factory attorneys.

    Lastly, there are many out-of-state attorneys who are not licensed in Texas who are actively advertising and are trying to take as many Malibu Media LLC clients from across the US as they can. Among them are a few [what I call] “settlement factories” (settlement factories are attorneys who run a volume-based business; they try to scare every defendant into settling the claims against them, and in my opinion they cause far more problems for the defendant than they solve).

    There used to be only a small handful of attorneys who I considered settlement factories, but unfortunately, with the younger crowd graduating law school and joining the ranks, I am seeing more and more inexperienced lawyers throw up a shingle and a blog and act as if they are a legitimate law practice, when really they are just another “settlement factory.” I have even had confrontational experiences with these attorneys — many of whom did not understand copyright law at all, and one who even thought these cases were criminal. “Umm, no.”

    In short, if you are sued by Paul Beik, I strongly recommend that you hire a Texas-licensed attorney to handle your case. I don’t care if you hire my Cashman Law Firm PLLC (often I don’t even take clients, and here is why) or if you hire another Texas attorney who is competent to work in these cases (if I cannot represent you, I will happily refer you to an attorney in Texas who can assist you).

    While it is impossible to know which Texas-based Malibu Media LLC John Doe Defendants will be named and served, based on my knowledge of Paul Beik and his timing, I will do my best to list cases which at the moment are at risk of being named and served. TBA.

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


    [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Texas Malibu Media 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 Malibu Media LLC case, or you can 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.

      New Siemens Industry Software Inc. Software Piracy Lawsuit.

      Siemens PLM Software Lawsuit NX

      SIEMENS INDUSTRY SOFTWARE INC. SOFTWARE LAWSUITS — “THEY’RE BACK!”

      I didn’t want to let this one slide. Remember the Siemens Industry Software Inc. lawsuits (where Siemens sued a number of engineers who used their NX software without a license)? Well, in July, 2018, they have filed their newest copyright Infringement lawsuit (this is the FIFTH TIME they are suing), this time against 107 John Doe Defendants (here in our own Texas Southern District Court, no less).

      Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-107 (4:18-cv-02344), filed July, 2018

      I’ve already written all that needs to be known about the Siemens Industry Software Inc. lawsuits

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

      Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Piracy Lawsuit
      Screenshot from Siemens PLM Software’s website on the NX Mach 3 software.

      What happened to the Siemens Industry Software Inc.’s older lawsuits?

      WAVE 1

      In Wave 1, Siemens solicited licenses for their NX software. At first, we thought that these were bittorrent-based lawsuits like the others we have been dealing with, but then we learned that Siemens was actually tracking the unlicensed USE of the software (e.g., think “software phone home”).

      This complicated the lawsuits because they were dealing with actual evidence (rather than the “snapshot bittorrent-based evidence” we have seen in the movie lawsuits). As a result, we put together a list of steps an attorney should take in defending a Siemens Industry Software Inc. lawsuit, and this has proven to be an effective strategy.

      Over time, the lawsuit progressed, and eventually Siemens dismissed the lawsuit once they realized who they wanted to name and serve in their own lawsuits, and they filed individual copyright infringement lawsuits against companies they discovered were using their software without a license.

      WAVE 2

      In Wave 2, 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.

      WAVES 3-4 (2017 – mid-2018)

      In Waves 3-4, Siemens continued to target engineers in their lawsuits.  The purpose of these lawsuits was to “legitimize” those who were using their NX software “for profit.”  They were more reasonable this time on the settlement amounts (no settlements, just purchase of software licenses), but they allowed the defendant some leeway in determining what software title would best benefit the user, and whether Mach 3 was needed, or whether a lower-cost alternative was an option.  Siemens Industry Software Inc. also started to discuss settlement negotiations themselves (e.g., offering money to settle the claims), however, this never materialized.

      WAVE 5 (late 2018)

      Now in Wave 5, I do not yet know whether these 107 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. However, at least the lawsuit itself (its intentions, and what to expect) are less of a mystery, as we were able to settle a number of claims in their previous lawsuits through the purchase of a software license.

      2020 UPDATE:

      WAVES 6-7 (2019):

      In Wave 6-7 (2019), Siemens Industry Software Inc. changed their strategy, attempting to streamline the settlement process.  In previous cases, those that used the software for personal reasons (e.g., academic, training, 3D printing, designing private home uses, etc.) were considered “tinkerers.”  In previous lawsuits, Siemens did not require this group of individuals to obtain a software license.

      IN WAVES 6 AND 7, *THIS CHANGED*.  Siemens Industry Software Inc. asked most defendants to buy software to legitimize their use.  The software did not 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.

      WAVE 8 (2020):

      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. lawsuit, and how we at the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC would handle your Siemens Industry Software Inc. case. This has been an effective strategy in each of the various Siemens Industry Software lawsuits, and thus I am suggesting it again with this newest wave of lawsuits.


      [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Siemens Industry Software Inc. software copyright case and options on how to proceed (even specifically for your circumstances), you can e-mail us at [email protected]ashmanlawfirm.com, you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your Siemens Industry Software case, or you can 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.

        How Venice PI LLC Filing lawsuits In Crowell Courts.

        venice-pi-subpoena-once-upon-a-time-in-venice-movie-lawsuit Venice PI

        There is a “new” copyright troll filing lawsuits with a fervor across the US named “Venice PI, LLC” (more on the word “new”; more on “across the US”).  The Venice PI lawsuits all claim $150,000 copyright infringement damages for the illegal download of the “Once Upon a Time in Venice” movie starring Bruce Willis.  ISPs are sending notices to their subscribers informing them that a Venice PI subpoena requesting their identity has been provided to them, and that they are under an order signed by a federal judge to comply, unless the subscriber files a “motion to quash” the subpoena.

        ISPs sending the subpoena notices to its subscribers informing them about the Once Upon a Time in Venice movie lawsuit include CenturyLink, Comcast Xfinity, Hawaii Telecom, Optimum Online, Verizon Fios, and Time Warner Cable, depending on where you live.

        As of this evening, I see lawsuits filed as early as 6/28/2017 and as recent as 7/18/2017. Once Upon a Time in Venice movie lawsuits are being filed in Texas, Indiana, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, and Washington.

        …Where have we seen those list of states before?!?

        Already, without even looking, I can already see based on where the lawsuits are filed that this is yet one more “common troll” set of lawsuits masterminded by Carl Crowell and his RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT entity. I bet you if I looked up the RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com website, I’d see the “Once Upon a Time in Venice” movie listed there. Let’s look. …Yup. Bottom right, LSD style.

        venice-pi-subpoena-once-upon-a-time-in-venice-movie-lawsuit Venice PI

        Personally, for a Once Upon a Time in Venice movie lawsuit, I would prefer something less noisy, but you’re not reading this for my aesthetic preferences.

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

        Point being, we are dealing with Carl Crowell and his local counsel in the various states.  This means that we know not only what the lawsuits will look like (as far as which judge will allow what), but we know the plaintiff attorney who has sent the subpoenas, and their proclivities.  This means that we know which attorneys are squeamish in naming and serving defendants, which are comfortable taking the lawsuit straight into discovery, and which are “quick on the trigger,” (think, the train whistle blows before the train has left the station) meaning, which attorneys will get him or herself into trouble with a judge by not following the rules, and as a result, names and serves every John Doe Defendant.

        This historical knowledge of who has done what is one reason to hire an attorney, but knowing which way to approach the lawsuit based on the proclivities of the attorney filing the lawsuit is another reason you hire an attorney.  In short, we all know that the options are FIGHT, NO-SETTLE REPRESENTATION, SETTLE (without describing each option, as I’ve done this before), and we all know that for a defendant who did not do the download, I recommend one set of options, and for someone who did do the download, I recommend another set of options.  Don’t be fooled — it’s not black and white. [SPEAK TO ME if you want my opinion on your particular case.]

        Now for those who want to settle, we already have an idea of what Venice PI settlement amounts each attorney will likely ask for (their asking prices), and based on the other lawsuits filed by these attorney, we have a good idea of what settlement amounts Venice PI, LLC will accept, if you decided to settle in the first place.  Again, there is the no settlement representation, where you have me keep an open line of communication with the plaintiff attorney to demonstrate to him/her why you did not do the download, and there is also a “no settlement letter” which I write for innocent clients to stop the troll scheme cold.

        In short, there is a lot of repeat here because this lawsuit contains a lot of repeat from what we’ve seen in the past with the ME2 Productions (Mechanic:Resurrection) movie lawsuits, the UN4 Productions (Undisputed 4) movie lawsuits, the Headhunter LLC (A Family Man) movie lawsuits, the WWE Studios (Eliminator) movie lawsuits, the Cook Productions (Mr. Church) movie lawsuits, etc.  Rinse, repeat, rinse repeat.

        For those interested in learning more about the Venice PI LLC lawsuits, see the two links below:

        Venice Pi (‘Once Upon a Time in Venice’) Movie Lawsuit Page,” written on 7/19/2017, and
        All I know about the Venice Pi, LLC (‘Once Upon a Time in Venice’) Movie Lawsuits (FAQ),” written on 7/18/2017.

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

        RECENT CASE HISTORY OF THE VENICE PI SUBPOENA CASES:

        VENICE PI ISP subpoenas ordered in the Texas Southern District Court
        Venice PI, LLC v. Does 1-16 (Case No. 4:17-cv-02203)

        VENICE PI ISP subpoenas ordered in the various North Carolina District Courts

        Venice PI subpoena cases in the North Carolina Eastern District Court:
        Venice PI, LLC v. Does 1-12 (Case No. 5:17-cv-00337, Case No.5:17-cv-00333)
        … v. Does 1-11 (Case No. 5:17-cv-00334)
        … v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 5:17-cv-00340, Case No. 5:17-cv-00339, Case No. 4:17-cv-00089)

        Venice PI subpoena cases in the North Carolina Middle District Court:
        … v. DOES 1-11 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00611)
        … v. DOES 1-18 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00610)

        Venice PI subpoena cases in the North Carolina Western District Court:
        … v. Does 1-10 (Case No. 3:17-cv-00409, Case No. 1:17-cv-00170)

        VENICE PI ISP subpoena ordered in the New York District Courts
        Venice PI, LLC v. Doe et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-04076, 1:17-cv-04249, 1:17-cv-04904)

        VENICE PI ISP subpoenas ordered in the Oregon District Court
        … v. Doe-73.96.114.240 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01002)
        … v. Doe-71.59.242.118 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01001)

        VENICE PI ISP subpoenas ordered in the Indiana Northern & Southern District Courts
        … v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:17-cv-00284, Case No. 2:17-cv-00285, Case No. 1:17-cv-02274, Case No. 1:17-cv-02328)

        VENICE PI ISP subpoenas ordered in the Colorado District Court
        … v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-01664)

        VENICE PI ISP subpoenas ordered in the Hawaii District Court
        … v. Doe 1; et al. (Case No. 1:17-cv-00335)

        VENICE PI ISP subpoenas ordered in the Washington Western District Court
        Venice PI LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:17-cv-01076, Case No. 2:17-cv-01075, Case No. 2:17-cv-01074, Case No. 2:17-cv-00988, Case No. 2:17-cv-00990, Case No. 2:17-cv-00991)


        FOR IMMEDIATE CONTACT WITH 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 [email protected], 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.

          …OR, SKIP TO THE APPOINTMENT…

          shalta book now cta

          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.

          Are the UN4 Productions ISP Subpoenas Targeting Ethnic Groups?

          UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas sent for the Boyka: Undisputed 4 movie lawsuit

          UN4 Productions ISP Subpoenas sent

          I don’t take pleasure in writing this, but there is a new copyright troll on the block named UN4 Productions, Inc. (a Millennium Films company). For the past two weeks, UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas have been going out to internet users informing them that they have been implicated as being a John Doe defendant in the UN4 Productions lawsuit (a.k.a. the Boyka: Undisputed 4 lawsuit). Each lawsuit claims copyright infringement damages of $150,000 for the illegal download or streaming of the Boyka: Undisputed 4 movie using bittorrent, or some other streaming device.

          The name Boyka generally means “One Who Terrifies in Battle,” fitting for a gory fighting movie. Boyka: Undisputed 4 focuses on the story of Yuri Boyka, a mixed martial arts fighter.

          Boyka: Undisputed 4 Video Trailer (click here)

          Why the Boyka: Undisputed 4 ISP subpoenas mirror what we have seen

          As soon as I looked into this new copyright troll, I realized that this is a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” copyright troll. The UN4 Productions ISP subpoena that you just received in the mail is coming from the same copyright enforcement entity (think Carl Crowell, or rightsenforcement.com) who just finished sending you bittorrent lawsuits for the ME2 Productions movie lawsuits, the Cook Productionsmovie lawsuits, the I.T. Productions movie lawsuits, LHF Productions movie lawsuits (think, London Has Fallen), and so many others.

          Are the Boyka: Undisputed 4 movie lawsuits targeting a particular ethnic group??

          The difference here with the Boyka: Undisputed 4 lawsuit is that this pirated movie has been dressed up as an ethnic movie (the previews I saw had arabic subtitles). Think, ME2 Productions, Inc. with no shirt, ripped bloody muscles, adrenaline-pumping punches all in line with the three previous Undisputed 4 movies [Undisputed (2002), Undisputed II: Last Man Standing (2006), and Undisputed III: Redemption (2010]).

          UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas sent for the Boyka: Undisputed movie lawsuit
          antfrank / Pixabay

          “tracking an ethnic-based movie based on a specific nationality”

          Again, just in case you did not get my innuendo. The twisted offense here with the Boyka: Undisputed 4 lawsuit is that the  UN4 Productions copyright trolls have developed a new way of catching people — by tracking an ethnic-based pirated movie based on a specific nationality.  They spread a fishnet, monitor the downloads, and vwallah!  They catch bittorrent downloaders with ethnic names. When that defendant claims “it isn’t me who did the download!” the plaintiff attorney just chuckles at Youssef, Oleksiy, Omar, or whichever ethnic name just happened to be the same ethnic group or nationality for whom the movie was made.

          UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas sent for the Boyka: Undisputed movie lawsuit

          How you can understand the Boyka: Undisputed 4 cases

          First of all, at some point this evening, I will be writing a FAQ page so that you can understand what is going on with your Boyka: Undisputed 4 lawsuit.  I will be posting that link here.

          To keep things simple, when you think of the UN4 Productions ISP subpoena you just received, or when you think about the Boyka: Undisputed 4 movie lawsuit, just think to yourself, “this is ME2 Productions in disguise. Same rules apply.” With the UN4 Productions lawsuit, the plaintiff attorney lawyers are exactly the same lawyers as with the ME2 Productions, Cook Productions, LHF Productions lawsuits we’ve been seeing for months now.

          Thus, you must come to the logical conclusion that the Boyka: Undisputed 4 movie lawsuit is simply another Carl Crowell (RightsEnforcement.com) common troll lawsuit with the same attorney characters we have seen before. We can infer that behind the scenes, the common troll entity (with MPAA’s blessing) approached the real production company of the Boyka: Undisputed 4 movie, and offered to license the rights to monetize the copyright rights on behalf of the Boyka: Undisputed 4 copyright holder (this means, sue defendants, extort multi-thousand dollar settlements from each John Doe Defendant, name some, dismiss some).

          How we at the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC understand the Boyka: Undisputed 4 cases.

          In sum, because we know the copyright enforcement entity behind the scenes of this lawsuit (think, APMC, or Anti-Piracy Management Company), and because we know the proclivities of the plaintiff attorneys (who names and serves, who settles, etc.) coupled with the federal judges who are assigned the various cases in each federal district court, we can predict with some relative certainty what will happen in each case.

          Whether that means filing a motion to quash an ISP subpoena, whether that means we will recommend that we defend your case, or whether we settle the claims against you or simply convince the plaintiff attorneys that it was not you who did the download (no settlement representation), there are a number of options we could take to represent our clients in these cases.

          Here are the cases:

          UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Colorado District Court
          [Most cases assigned to Judge Wiley Y. Daniel]
          UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-01419, Case No. 1:17-cv-01477, Case No. 1:17-cv-01577, Case No. 1:17-cv-01253, Case No. 1:17-cv-01299)

          UN4 Productions ISP subpoena ordered in the Hawaii District Court
          … v. Doe 1 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00282)

          UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Illinois Northern District Court
          UN4 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOES 1-22 (Case No. 1:17-cv-04865)
          … v. DOES 1-25 (Case No. 1:17-cv-04868)
          … v. DOES 1-21 (Case No. 1:17-cv-04866)
          … v. DOES 1-18 (Case No. 1:17-cv-04863)
          … v. DOES 1-23 (Case No. 1:17-cv-04861)

          UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Indiana Northern & Southern District Courts
          UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 3:17-cv-00473, Case No. 1:17-cv-00257, Case No. 1:17-cv-00228, Case No. 1:17-cv-02037, Case No. 1:17-cv-02070, Case No. 1:17-cv-01710)

          UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the New York Eastern & Southern District Courts
          UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-67.243.172.121 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-03621)
          … v. Doe-173.68.177.95 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-03278)
          … v. Doe-184.152.88.112 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-04817)

          UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the North Carolina Eastern District Court
          UN4 Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 5:17-cv-00278, Case No. 5:17-cv-00286, Case No. 5:17-cv-00317, Case No. 5:17-cv-00232, Case No. 7:17-cv-00109)
          UN4 Productions, Inc v. John Doe 1-12 (Case No. 5:17-cv-00238)

          UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the North Carolina Middle District Court
          … v. DOES 1-10 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00502)
          … v. DOES 1-10 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00528)
          … v. DOES 1-12 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00444)
          … v. DOE 1, et al. (Case No. 1:17-cv-00453)

          UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the North Carolina Western District Court
          … v. Does (Case No. 3:17-cv-00295, Case No. 3:17-cv-00297, Case No. 3:17-cv-00315, Case No. 3:17-cv-00329, Case No. 3:17-cv-00282, Case No. 3:17-cv-00284)

          UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Ohio Northern & Southern District Courts
          … v. Does (Case No. 3:17-cv-01190)
          … v. Does 1-11 (Case No. 5:17-cv-01185)
          … v. Does 1-12 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00388)
          … v. Does 1-11 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00492)

          UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Oregon District Court
          … v. Doe-76.27.210.76 (Case No. 3:17-cv-00721)
          … v. Doe-71.238.54.166 (Case No. 3:17-cv-00722)

          UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court
          … v. JOHN DOES 1-9 (Case No. 2:17-cv-02481)
          … v. JOHN DOES 1-15 (Case No. 2:17-cv-02768)

          UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Texas Southern District Court
          … v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 4:17-cv-01685)
          … v. Does 1-13 (Case No. 4:17-cv-01788)
          … v. Does 1-13 (Case No. 4:17-cv-01834)

          UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Washington Western District Court
          [Most cases assigned to Judge Robert S. Lasnik]
          … v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:17-cv-00892, Case No. 2:17-cv-00786, Case No. 2:17-cv-00785)

          Skip to content