Dassault Systèmes, S.A. v. Childress is a long-running United States case between Dassault Systèmes, the developer of the CATIA computer-aided design software, and Keith Childress, who operated a CATIA training school in the Detroit area under the name Practical CATIA Training. Dassault alleged that Childress had bought a single node-locked CATIA V5 licence and cloned the software and its Target ID onto about 20 classroom computers. Childress said that the reseller and business partner that supplied his licences had allowed the copying as a “workaround” for licence server problems. A default judgment against him was reversed by the Sixth Circuit in 2011 and a first jury verdict was vacated in 2020. At a retrial in March 2024, the jury found willful copyright infringement, and in March 2026 the district court entered a final judgment for $444,612.50 and a permanent injunction against Childress’ use of the CATIA mark. Notices of appeal followed.[1][3][5][6]
Background
The licence
According to the district court’s 2014 opinion, CATIA software requires a licence and a Target ID in order to run on a computer. Until 2005, sales of CATIA licences in the United States were handled by IBM and its network of business partners. In October 2001, Childress’ business bought one CATIA V5 Release 12 licence from MSC Software, an IBM business partner, and was assigned a corresponding Target ID; the annual licence charge was paid every year until at least 2009.[2] The Sixth Circuit described it as one annual node-lock licence that permits use on a single computer based on a unique Target ID.[1]
The “workaround”
Childress’ evidence, as summarised by the district court, was that from November 2001 MSC supplied the school and its students with fully functional CATIA V5 software and temporary licences in exchange for banner advertising, distribution of MSC business cards and student contact details for sales leads. In 2003, MSC set up a licence server in the classroom and IBM supplied a six-month, 15-user server licence. When connectivity problems arose, Childress bought programmable network cards that gave each classroom computer the same address as the single Release 12 licence. An MSC employee stated that he knew of this “workaround” and did not object because Childress had MSC’s permission to use the software. Childress filed a CD containing about 250 CATIA V5 licences received from IBM or MSC between 2000 and 2007.[2]
Dassault’s position was that Childress had no such licences and ran his courses on bootlegged copies created from his one legitimate licence by cloning the Target ID, and that any software problems requiring a workaround came from running unlicensed copies.[1] When Dassault took over CATIA licensing from IBM in 2005, it required training schools to join its Education Partner Program in order to receive licences for training third parties.[2]
Criminal investigation
On 30 October 2006 the FBI executed a search warrant at the school and seized 20 computers alleged to contain bootlegged copies of CATIA. The government ultimately declined to prosecute; a 2010 letter from the United States Attorney’s Office stated that it had declined prosecution for potential copyright violations concerning the copying and use of CATIA software from about 2003 to October 2006.[1][2]
Procedural history
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-02-12 | Dassault sues for copyright infringement, trademark infringement, unfair competition and a Michigan consumer protection claim[1] |
| 2010-07-20 | After Childress, then self-represented, files motions instead of an answer, the court enters a default judgment of $964,465 plus fees and an injunction[1] |
| 2011-12-13 | The Sixth Circuit reverses: the default should have been set aside, because Childress’ conduct was not culpable enough, Dassault showed little prejudice and a limitations defence was arguable[1] |
| 2014-12-03 | The district court denies both sides summary judgment on Dassault’s claims, finding genuine disputes over whether Childress had any right to copy the single licence[2] |
| 2017 | First jury trial; the jury finds copyright infringement but not willful infringement[3][4] |
| 2020 | The Sixth Circuit vacates the judgment and remands for a new trial; it had found a 10-hour time limit on each side’s case insufficient[3] |
| March 2024 | Retrial: verdict for Dassault on copyright infringement, found willful; trademark infringement elements found but the jury accepts a fair use defence; Childress’ abuse of process counterclaim rejected[3][4] |
| November 2024 | The court grants Dassault judgment as a matter of law that the fair use defence fails, and indicates it will award attorneys’ fees[3] |
| 2025-07-17 and 2025-09-09 | Childress’ motions for reconsideration denied[3][4] |
| 2026-03-16 | Final judgment and permanent injunction[5] |
| 2026-04-13 and 2026-05-04 | Notices of appeal to the Sixth Circuit filed[6] |
Decision or outcome
Why the licence question went to a jury
In 2014 Dassault argued that it was entitled to summary judgment because it was undisputed that Childress owned only one CATIA V5 Release 12 licence and Dassault had not consented to the cloning. The court accepted that there was no direct evidence that Dassault itself consented, but found evidence that Childress had reason to believe he had permission: IBM and MSC acted as Dassault’s agents in selling CATIA, Dassault held minority stakes in MSC and its predecessor, an IBM manager knew the school used CATIA V5 for teaching, and MSC knew of and did not object to the workaround. Whether Childress had any right to make multiple copies of the single licence, and what Dassault knew of his arrangements with IBM and MSC, were left for trial.[2]
Final judgment
The final judgment of 16 March 2026, entered consistently with the jury verdict of 26 March 2024, the order on fair use and the order granting a permanent injunction, provides that:[5]
- Childress is liable for copyright infringement for the unlawful copying of the CATIA software, and must pay $444,612.50 under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b) and (c), described as the total amount awarded by the jury. A July 2025 order had described the jury’s copyright damages as $458,862.50.[3]
- Childress is liable for trademark infringement and is permanently enjoined from using the CATIA mark in the name of any business he operates, any course he teaches or any website address, and had to deactivate the practicalcatia.com website.
- Dassault is not liable on any of Childress’ counterclaims.
On the same day the court granted in part Dassault’s motion for attorneys’ fees. The court had explained in 2025 that the second jury’s finding of willful infringement, unlike the first jury’s finding, weighed strongly in favour of a fee award.[3][6]
Significance for software licensing and SAM practice
- Node-locked licences are machine-bound. The licence was tied to one computer by a Target ID, and the copyright claim rested on reproducing that identifier on other machines, here by giving classroom computers the same network address.[1][2]
- Channel assurances are not the publisher’s licence. Statements by a reseller’s staff kept the case alive past summary judgment, but did not prevent a willful infringement verdict at the retrial.[2][3]
- Changes in the channel change the rules. When licensing moved from IBM to Dassault in 2005, training providers had to join a vendor programme to obtain training licences.[2]
- Procedure matters. The first damages award was lost because the defendant was in default, and the first verdict because of trial time limits; the dispute lasted 17 years in the district court.[1][3]
Lessons learned
- Treat a node-locked licence as one machine. Duplicating the host identifier, whatever the technical reason, was the copying at the heart of the case.[1][2]
- Get non-standard permissions in writing from the licensor. An informal arrangement with a reseller’s staff became a disputed fact question rather than a defence that ended the case.[2]
- Willfulness raises the stakes. The retrial’s willfulness finding supported an attorneys’ fee award that the first trial had not.[3]
- Respond to the complaint. Filing motions instead of an answer led to a default judgment of $964,465 that took an appeal to undo.[1]