The MathWorks, Inc. v. COMSOL AB is the name of two related actions that the maker of MATLAB brought against COMSOL AB and COMSOL, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. Both were filed on 2006-07-28 and were assigned to Judge Leonard Davis. One, No. 6:06-cv-00335, was classified as a copyright infringement case. The other, No. 6:06-cv-00334, was classified as a patent infringement case.[1][2]
Background
COMSOL AB sells COMSOL Multiphysics and related simulation software, which is licensed under the terms described in COMSOL licensing. The dispute concerned a different COMSOL product, COMSOL Script. According to MathWorks’ own account in a 2020 amicus brief, COMSOL Script copied nearly 600 of MATLAB’s most popular expressions, including function signatures such as linspace and tic/toc, and was marketed as a replacement for MATLAB at half the price.[4] That description is MathWorks’ position in a brief to the Supreme Court, not a finding by the trial court, and the retrieved court records do not state COMSOL’s contrary arguments in text form.
The dispute
MathWorks filed its complaint on 2006-07-28 (docket entry 1), and the docket classifies the case under cause 17:504, copyright infringement.[1] COMSOL AB and COMSOL, Inc. answered on 2006-12-22 with a jury demand and a counterclaim, and filed an amended answer and further answers in January and February 2007.[1] A motion to sever was filed on 2007-02-06, and COMSOL’s opposition of 2007-02-23 describes it as a motion to sever and stay “antitrust counterclaims”, which shows that COMSOL’s counterclaims included antitrust claims. The retrieved entries do not show how the motion was decided.[1]
In the companion patent action, MathWorks alleged that COMSOL infringed claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,051,338, which issued on 2006-05-23. The court describes the patent as claiming a method and apparatus that facilitate invoking object methods defined within an object-oriented environment from an array-based technical computing environment.[3] On 2008-02-13 the court issued a memorandum opinion construing disputed terms of the patent, and noted that COMSOL’s counsel had agreed to MathWorks’ construction of the remaining disputed terms except for two phrases about ranking method signatures.[3] The patent docket was terminated on 2008-03-10; the retrieved records do not state the terms.[2]
Taken together, the two dockets show MathWorks pursuing COMSOL on two fronts at once: copyright over interface expressions in one action, and a patent on method invocation between array-based and object-oriented environments in the other. The records retrieved do not show whether the patent claims were adjudicated or resolved by agreement, so this article treats the copyright action as the principal one and does not report any patent outcome.[1][2][3]
Decision or outcome
Trial and verdict
The docket for the copyright case records trial exhibits admitted between 2008-10-14 and 2008-10-20. A jury verdict was entered on 2008-10-20 (entries 180 and 181).[1] Four days later the court denied three motions for judgment as a matter of law by COMSOL and ordered MathWorks to file an agreed proposed final judgment by 2008-10-29.[1] MathWorks’ later brief states that after a jury verdict in its favour it received monetary compensation and a permanent injunction prohibiting COMSOL from marketing the product.[4]
Injunction and consent judgment
On 2008-10-29 MathWorks moved for a permanent injunction, and on 2008-11-11 it filed a sealed motion for attorney’s fees, costs and interest. On 2008-11-19 the parties jointly moved to approve a consent judgment, and on 2008-11-24 Judge Davis signed a “CONSENT JUDGMENT and ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION”, which is the final numbered docket entry.[1] The retrieved sources do not include the text of the consent judgment, the verdict form or the amount of any payment.
Significance for software licensing and SAM practice
The case is not a licence-audit dispute between a vendor and a customer. It is a dispute between two software vendors over whether a rival product could reproduce the interface of a widely used one. It matters to licence managers in three ways.
First, it shows how an interface-compatible product can end through litigation. A team that adopted COMSOL Script in the mid-2000s as a lower-priced alternative to MATLAB would have been affected by an injunction on marketing the product. The retrieved records do not say what the injunction required of existing users, so a licensee in that position would need to ask the vendor in writing.
Second, MathWorks has since used the case as a worked example in a Supreme Court argument that copying an innovator’s declaring code is the easiest way to compete.[4] The brief was filed in support of Oracle in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., No. 18-956, and is a party advocacy document, not a court decision.[4]
Third, COMSOL’s current agreement contains language that guards the same boundary from the other side. Section 2(h)(xi) of the COMSOL Software License Agreement bars use of the Programs to develop an independent program with functionality that is the same as, substantially similar to or competitive with COMSOL’s own, and bars incorporating functionality derived through use of the Programs.[5] Licensees that build tools around COMSOL should read that clause with the same care.
Lessons learned
- Interface compatibility can be a copyright question. MathWorks pleaded copyright infringement over the function-level expressions of a compatibility product, and the case reached a jury verdict, so a vendor that sells a drop-in alternative to a rival’s software should expect scrutiny of the interface it copies.[1][4]
- Competitors may sue on several theories at once. The copyright and patent actions were filed on the same day and assigned to the same judge.[1][2]
- Read the final judgment, not just the headline. The case ended in a consent judgment and permanent injunction after a verdict, and the terms were not in the sources retrieved. Licensees of a product that is the subject of such a judgment should ask the vendor for its written position on continued use and support.[1]
- Counterclaims can complicate the schedule. The docket shows a motion to sever and stay antitrust counterclaims, and an opposition to it, in the first year of the case.[1]