Dassault Systèmes SolidWorks Corporation v. Kitchenery, Inc. is a pending case in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. DS SolidWorks, the Dassault Systèmes subsidiary that develops the SOLIDWORKS computer-aided design software, alleges that a Tampa start-up, its chief executive and an engineer who did work for it used cracked copies of SOLIDWORKS on two computers, one of which the company had bought second-hand on eBay with software advertised as “fully licensed”. The complaint pleads copyright infringement, circumvention of technological measures under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and breach of the SOLIDWORKS licence agreement. The defendants deny liability, say they relied in good faith on the sellers who installed the software, and accuse DS SolidWorks of copyright misuse. No court has ruled on the merits; the facts below are allegations or pleaded defences.[1][2]
Background
Detection
The complaint alleges that SOLIDWORKS incorporates detection and monitoring technology that identifies use of unlicensed copies and transmits identifying data to DS SolidWorks over the internet. It says this technology detected at least 271 uses of unlicensed copies on two computers, identified by MAC addresses:[1]
| Computer | Alleged uses | Data the complaint relies on |
|---|---|---|
| Computer 1 | At least 169 | Wi-Fi geolocation at the engineer’s current and previous homes and at the company’s former office; a user name matching the engineer’s name; a university email address and a company email address |
| Computer 2 | At least 100 | Wi-Fi geolocation at the engineer’s home; a host ID that matched a screenshot later sent by the company’s chief executive |
The complaint also alleges that the monitoring technology detected the signature of a known crack program used to defeat SOLIDWORKS’ access controls, and that a screenshot of the “About SOLIDWORKS” window sent by the chief executive showed a serial number “commonly used by software pirates”.[1]
The second-hand workstation
According to the complaint, in August 2025 the chief executive told DS SolidWorks’ counsel that the company had bought a refurbished Dell CAD workstation on eBay, and sent an order sheet for an item described as a CAD workstation with Autodesk, AutoCAD, Revit, SOLIDWORKS 2023 and Adobe software. He wrote that the listing said “SOLIDWORKS Premium 2023 – ALL FULLY LICENSED AND ACTIVED AND NEVER EXPIRE!!!”. DS SolidWorks alleges that this was Computer 2 and that the company never had a SOLIDWORKS licence.[1]
Pre-suit contact
The complaint describes a letter from DS SolidWorks’ counsel on 29 August 2024 offering to resolve the matter, contacts by a DS SolidWorks “compliance mediator” until November 2024, and email exchanges with counsel from December 2024 to September 2025, none of which led to a resolution. It alleges that unlicensed use continued during that period, including on Computer 2 from 20 September 2024 until at least 29 July 2025.[1]
Claims
| Count | Basis | Relief sought |
|---|---|---|
| Copyright infringement (17 U.S.C. § 501) | Downloading, installing and running SOLIDWORKS 2023 and 2024, including copying into RAM, without authorisation; vicarious and contributory liability of the company and its chief executive | Actual damages above $75,000, the company’s profits, statutory damages of $150,000 per work infringed, costs and fees |
| Circumvention (17 U.S.C. § 1201) | Bypassing the licence key required at installation by using a crack | Actual damages above $75,000, the company’s profits, statutory damages of $2,500 per act of circumvention, costs and fees |
| Breach of contract (Massachusetts law) | Breach of the SOLIDWORKS licence agreement accepted on installation | Damages |
The contract count quotes the licence agreement: a single-user licence fee permits installation and use of one copy on a single computer; the software may not be loaded, used or copied without a right from DS; and DS may use a hardware lock, licence administration software or an authorisation key, which the user may not take steps to avoid or defeat. The complaint says a link to the agreement is displayed during installation and that installing and using the software signifies agreement to its terms.[1]
Defences
In their amended answer, the company and its chief executive admit some facts, including the eBay purchase and the listing text, but deny wrongdoing. Their defences include:[2]
- Copyright misuse. They allege that DS SolidWorks delayed in order to increase its claim, first claiming $57,727 and later nearly $1 million; that it described its enforcement staff as “mediators”; that it cancelled the company’s post-purchase order for legitimate software while the dispute was being negotiated; and that it sought confidentiality and an incomplete release.
- Waiver and failure to mitigate. They say DS SolidWorks had the engineer’s email address from his first use in 2023 but waited about 18 months, until after he began working with the company, before making contact, and that use stopped promptly after each notice.
- No agency. They say the engineer was an independent contractor who owned his own computer and software.
- Fault of third parties. They attribute any infringement to the computer shop that installed software on the engineer’s personal computer and to the eBay seller.
- Innocent infringement, de minimis copying and preemption. They plead good-faith reliance on the sellers, argue that temporary copies in RAM are not “fixed” copies, and argue that the contract claim is preempted by the Copyright Act.
Significance for software licensing and SAM practice
The case is at the pleading stage, so it decides nothing. It is nevertheless a concrete example of how a CAD vendor’s compliance process runs from detection to litigation:
- Detection data. The complaint ties use to people and places with MAC addresses, user names, email addresses found on the machine and Wi-Fi geolocation.[1]
- Hardware with pre-installed software. One of the two computers was bought second-hand with professional software advertised as licensed; the vendor treats those copies as unlicensed, and the buyer’s defence is reliance on the seller.[1][2]
- Contractor devices. Whether the company is responsible for software on a contractor’s own computer used for its work is one of the contested issues.[2]
- Three legal theories. Besides copyright, the vendor pleads anti-circumvention and breach of the click-through licence, each with its own remedies.[1]
Lessons learned
- A “fully licensed” listing is not a licence. The vendor alleges that a refurbished workstation bought on eBay ran cracked SOLIDWORKS, so check that any pre-installed software comes with a transferable licence from the publisher, or remove it.[1]
- Monitoring data can point at an employer. Company email addresses and office geolocation found on a machine were pleaded to connect use to the business.[1]
- Stop use on first notice. The complaint relies on use continuing during more than a year of correspondence to plead willfulness; the defendants’ answer, in turn, relies on stopping promptly.[1][2]
- Decide who licenses contractor software. The dispute over whether the engineer was an independent contractor shows the value of stating, in the engagement terms, who supplies and licenses the tools.[2]