Case3:13-cv-05160-SI Document13 Filed11/24/13 Page1 of 16
`
`
`
`Jack Russo (Cal. Bar No. 96068)
`Christopher Sargent (Cal. Bar No. 246285)
`Ansel Halliburton (Cal. Bar No. 282906)
`COMPUTERLAW GROUP LLP
`401 Florence Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94301
`(650) 327-9800
`(650) 618-1863 fax
`jrusso@computerlaw.com
`csargent@computerlaw.com
`ahalliburton@computerlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`XIMPLEWARE CORP.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:13-cv-5160-NC
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
`XIMPLEWARE’S EX PARTE APPLICATION
`FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, FOR
`ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:
`PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND FOR
`EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
`
`
`XimpleWare Corp., a California
`Corporation,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff;
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Versata Software, Inc., f/k/a Trilogy
`Software, Inc., a Delaware corporation;
`Trilogy Development Group, Inc., a
`California corporation; Ameriprise
`Financial, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and
`Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., a
`Delaware corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Ex Parte Application re: TRO, OSC, and Expedited
`Discovery
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:13-cv-5160-NC
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`www.computerlaw.comsm
`Computerlaw Group LLP
`
`

`
`Case3:13-cv-05160-SI Document13 Filed11/24/13 Page2 of 16
`
`
`
`1
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`2
`
`Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
`
`3
`
`Statement of Facts ........................................................................................................................ 1
`
`4
`
`Argument
`
`................................................................................................................................ 2
`
`5
`
`I. The Court Should Issue a Temporary Restraining Order Enjoining Versata’s
`
`Infringement and Misappropriation. ................................................................................... 2
`
`A. The Copyright Act Expressly Allows Temporary Injunctive Relief. ................................... 2
`
`B. Legal Standard for Issuing a Temporary Restraining Order ................................................ 2
`
`C. XimpleWare Has Raised Serious Questions, and Is
`
`Very Likely To Prevail On The Merits................................................................................. 3
`
`1. Undisputed Facts Demonstrate Versata’s Unlicensed Commercial Sales of
`
`XimpleWare’s GPL-Licensed VTD-XML Source Code. ......................................... 3
`
`2. XimpleWare Owns a Registered Copyright in Its VTD-XML Software. ................. 4
`
`3. Versata Copied and Sold VTD-XML as Part of Its DCM Product. .......................... 5
`
`4. Versata Cannot Claim Protection From Any GPL License. ...................................... 6
`
`5. Versata Never Had Any Rights to Distribute VTD-XML. ........................................ 7
`
`6. Because the GPL Does Not Protect Them, Versata and Ameriprise Are
`
`Liable for Copyright Infringement Jointly and Severally. ........................................ 7
`
`D. The Balance Of Hardships Tips Sharply In XimpleWare’s Favor. ...................................... 8
`
`E. An Early TRO in This Case Serves The Public Interest. ..................................................... 9
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`www.computerlaw.comsm
`Computerlaw Group LLP
`
`21
`
`II. The Court Should Grant XimpleWare Limited Expedited Discovery To Support its
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Time-Sensitive Preliminary Injunction Motion. ................................................................. 9
`
`A. There is Ample Good Cause for Allowing Limited Early Discovery. ............................... 10
`
`B. The Discovery XimpleWare Seeks is Narrowly Tailored and Mutual. .............................. 11
`
`25
`
`Conclusion
`
`.............................................................................................................................. 11
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex Parte Application re: TRO, OSC, and Expedited
`Discovery
`
`
`i
`
`Case No. 3:13-cv-5160-NC
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case3:13-cv-05160-SI Document13 Filed11/24/13 Page3 of 16
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`3
`
`Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011), ...................................... 3
`
`4
`
`Amoco Production Co. v. Gambell, 480 U.S. 531 (1987) .............................................................. 3
`
`5
`
`Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 673 F. Supp. 2d 943 (N.D. Cal. 2009) .............................................. 9
`
`6
`
`Computer Assocs. Int’l v. Quest Software, Inc., 333 F. Supp. 2d 688 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 28, 2004) .. 10
`
`7
`
`Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) ................................................... 8
`
`8
`
`Jacobsen v. Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ...................................................................... 6
`
`9
`
`Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (1997).................................................................................. 3
`
`10
`
`Notaro v. Koch, 95 F.R.D. 403, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14842 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) ........................ 10
`
`11
`
`Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., 208 F.R.D. 273, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8961
`
`12
`
`(N.D. Cal. 2002)....................................................................................................................... 10
`
`13
`
`Sencion v. Saxon Mortg. Servs., LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41022, 2011 WL 1364007
`
`14
`
`(N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2011) ........................................................................................................... 3
`
`15
`
`State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384 (9th Cir. 1988) .................................. 2
`
`16
`
`Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305 (1982) .................................................................... 3
`
`17
`
`Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) ................................................ 2
`
`18
`
`Yokohama Tire Corp. v. Dealers Tire Supply, Inc., 202 F.R.D. 612, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17349
`
`19
`
`(D. Ariz. 2001) ......................................................................................................................... 10
`
`www.computerlaw.comsm
`Computerlaw Group LLP
`
`20
`
`STATUTES
`
`21
`
`17 U.S.C. § 102 .............................................................................................................................. 5
`
`22
`
`17 U.S.C. § 106 .................................................................................................................... 7, 8, 12
`
`23
`
`17 U.S.C. § 201 .............................................................................................................................. 5
`
`24
`
`17 U.S.C. § 410 .............................................................................................................................. 5
`
`25
`
`17 U.S.C. § 501 .............................................................................................................................. 8
`
`26
`
`17 U.S.C. § 502 .......................................................................................................................... 2, 8
`
`27
`
`17 U.S.C. § 506 .............................................................................................................................. 9
`
`28
`
`Ex Parte Application re: TRO, OSC, and Expedited
`Discovery
`
`
`ii
`
`Case No. 3:13-cv-5160-NC
`
`

`
`Case3:13-cv-05160-SI Document13 Filed11/24/13 Page4 of 16
`
`
`
`1
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`2
`
`U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 61, “Copyright Registration for Computer Programs,”
`
`3
`
`Aug. 2012 ................................................................................................................................... 5
`
`4
`
`RULES
`
`5
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 30 ................................................................................................................. 12
`
`6
`
`FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 65 ............................................................................................................. 3, 12
`
`7
`
`CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
`
`8
`
`U.S. Const. art I, § 8, cl. 8 .............................................................................................................. 9
`
`Ex Parte Application re: TRO, OSC, and Expedited
`Discovery
`
`
`iii
`
`Case No. 3:13-cv-5160-NC
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`www.computerlaw.comsm
`Computerlaw Group LLP
`
`

`
`Case3:13-cv-05160-SI Document13 Filed11/24/13 Page5 of 16
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`Plaintiff XimpleWare, Inc. has sued Versata Software, Inc. and its affiliated companies, as
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`3
`
`well as an also infringing customer, Ameriprise Financial, for copyright infringement and related
`
`4
`
`claims. This case arises from Versata’s wholesale appropriation of XimpleWare’s copyrighted
`
`5
`
`VTD-XML software into Versata’s own DCM product—without authorization from XimpleWare
`
`6
`
`and in clear violation of the limited GPL license under which XimpleWare makes its software
`
`7
`
`available—and Versata’s multi-million dollar sales (and Amerirprise’s multi-million dollar use)
`
`8
`
`of its DCM product, which includes XimpleWare’s unlicensed VTD-XML software.
`
`9
`
`A temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction are warranted because, to date,
`
`10
`
`Versata has denied and concealed its infringement from both XimpleWare and Ameriprise, its
`
`11
`
`major distributor to tens if not hundreds of thousands of independent contractors, all continuing
`
`12
`
`even after repeated notices to each Defendant. The VTD-XML software that Versata has
`
`13
`
`misappropriated is XimpleWare’s principal asset. Absent injunctive relief, XimpleWare will
`
`14
`
`continue to be irreparably harmed by loss of control over its sole asset.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`XimpleWare is a California corporation that develops and licenses software for extremely
`
`17
`
`efficient data processing. XimpleWare holds all the rights—including copyrights and patents—in
`
`18
`
`its software and its source code, including for its main product, which it calls VTD-XML.
`
`19
`
`Versata is an enterprise software company that sells several products, one of which is a
`
`20
`
`complex system for insurance companies called Distribution Channel Management, or DCM,
`
`21
`
`which it licenses for millions of dollars per customer. Ameriprise, a national financial services
`
`22
`
`company, has been a DCM customer for many years.
`
`23
`
`Recently, XimpleWare learned through Ameriprise that Versata had incorporated
`
`24
`
`XimpleWare’s VTD-XML source code into DCM—but without obtaining a commercial license
`
`25
`
`from XimpleWare. Based on XimpleWare’s discussions with Ameriprise, and according to filings
`
`26
`
`in Texas state court litigation between Versata and Ameriprise (but not XimpleWare), during
`
`www.computerlaw.comsm
`Computerlaw Group LLP
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Ex Parte Application re: TRO, OSC, and Expedited
`Discovery
`
`
`1
`
`Case No. 3:13-cv-5160-NC
`
`

`
`Case3:13-cv-05160-SI Document13 Filed11/24/13 Page6 of 16
`
`
`
`1
`
`discovery in litigation with Versata, Ameriprise discovered that Versata had incorporated
`
`2
`
`XimpleWare’s DCM source code into its DCM product.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`THE COURT SHOULD ISSUE A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER ENJOINING
`VERSATA’S INFRINGEMENT AND MISAPPROPRIATION.
`
`A.
`
`The Copyright Act Expressly Allows Temporary Injunctive Relief.
`
`The Copyright Act expressly allows this Court to grant injunctive relief—including a
`
`“temporary…injunction[]” (i.e., a TRO):
`
`Any court having jurisdiction of a civil action arising under [the Copyright Act]
`may…grant temporary and final injunctions on such terms as it may deem
`reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright.
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`17 U.S.C. § 502(a) (2013) (emphasis added). That is precisely what XimpleWare requests here: a
`
`12
`
`TRO to temporarily restrain Versata’s copyright infringement. In addition, the terms of the TRO
`
`13
`
`XimpleWare seeks are “reasonable”: a TRO lasting only until the full preliminary injunction
`
`14
`
`hearing, at which point Versata will have had a full opportunity to brief the Court and to argue
`
`15
`
`the merits.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`B.
`
`Legal Standard for Issuing a Temporary Restraining Order
`
`The Ninth Circuit’s standards for granting a temporary restraining order are identical to
`
`18
`
`those for granting a preliminary injunction. State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d
`
`19
`
`1384, 1389 (9th Cir. 1988). The Supreme Court has held that, to obtain a preliminary injunction,
`
`20
`
`plaintiffs “must establish that [they are] likely to succeed on the merits, that [they are] likely to
`
`21
`
`suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in
`
`22
`
`[their] favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources
`
`23
`
`Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (citations omitted). The Winter court also noted that because
`
`24
`
`injunctive relief is “an extraordinary remedy,” it “may only be awarded upon a clear showing
`
`25
`
`that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Id. at 375–76, citing Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S.
`
`26
`
`968, 972 (1997) (per curiam). Thus, “[i]n each case, courts ‘must balance the competing claims
`
`27
`
`of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the
`
`28
`
`Ex Parte Application re: TRO, OSC, and Expedited
`Discovery
`
`
`2
`
`Case No. 3:13-cv-5160-NC
`
`www.computerlaw.comsm
`Computerlaw Group LLP
`
`

`
`Case3:13-cv-05160-SI Document13 Filed11/24/13 Page7 of 16
`
`
`
`1
`
`requested relief.’” Id. at 376 (citing Amoco Production Co. v. Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 542
`
`2
`
`(1987)). “‘In exercising their sound discretion, courts of equity should pay particular regard for
`
`3
`
`the public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction.’” Id. at 376–77,
`
`4
`
`citing Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312 (1982).
`
`5
`
`In Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011), the Ninth
`
`6
`
`Circuit held that the “serious questions” sliding-scale approach survived Winter, whereby
`
`7
`
`preliminary injunctive relief should also be granted when a plaintiff demonstrates “that serious
`
`8
`
`questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of the hardships tips sharply in the
`
`9
`
`plaintiff's favor,” thereby allowing District Courts to preserve the status quo where difficult legal
`
`10
`
`questions require more deliberate investigation. Alliance, 632 F.3d at 1135; see also Sencion v.
`
`11
`
`Saxon Mortg. Servs., LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41022 at *5, 2011 WL 1364007 at *2 (N.D.
`
`12
`
`Cal. Apr. 11, 2011). The plaintiff must also satisfy the irreparable harm and public interest
`
`13
`
`requirements under Winter, 632 F.3d at 1132, 1135. However, the sliding-scale approach allows
`
`14
`
`the Court to protect XimpleWare pending resolution of its preliminary injunction motion and the
`
`15
`
`remainder of this case. After issuing a TRO, the Court should set an expedited briefing schedule
`
`16
`
`on the Order to Show Cause based on the requirements of Rule 65(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of
`
`17
`
`Civil Procedure, which provides that a TRO shall expire within fourteen days of the date of entry
`
`18
`
`“unless before that time the court, for good cause, extends it for a like period or the adverse party
`
`www.computerlaw.comsm
`Computerlaw Group LLP
`
`19
`
`consents to a longer extension.” FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 65.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`C.
`
`XimpleWare Has Raised Serious Questions, and Is Very Likely To Prevail On
`The Merits.
`
`Even at this early stage of the litigation, there are enough undisputed facts to show that
`
`XimpleWare is highly likely to prevail on the merits of its breach of contract and copyright
`
`claims.
`
`1.
`
`Undisputed Facts Demonstrate Versata’s Unlicensed Commercial
`Sales of XimpleWare’s GPL-Licensed VTD-XML Source Code.
`
`Based on information in Ameriprise’s filings in its case against Versata in Texas state
`
`27
`
`court, and on discussions with counsel for Ameriprise, XimpleWare understands that, during
`
`28
`
`Ex Parte Application re: TRO, OSC, and Expedited
`Discovery
`
`
`3
`
`Case No. 3:13-cv-5160-NC
`
`

`
`Case3:13-cv-05160-SI Document13 Filed11/24/13 Page8 of 16
`
`
`
`1
`
`separate litigation between Ameriprise and Versata, Ameriprise discovered XimpleWare’s source
`
`2
`
`code within the source code for Versata’s DCM product.1 The following facts are not reasonably
`
`3
`
`disputed:
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`1. Versata included the source code for VTD-XML in the source code for its
`
`DCM product.2
`
`2. Versata licensed, for millions of dollars, its DCM product (which included
`
`unlicensed copies of VTD-XML), to Ameriprise and other customers.3
`
`3. Versata never obtained a commercial license for VTD-XML from
`
`XimpleWare.4
`
`4. Versata never released the source code for its DCM product as open source
`
`under the GPL.5
`
`As a matter of law, these facts constitute breach of the GPL—and therefore copyright
`
`13
`
`infringement.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`2.
`
`XimpleWare Owns a Registered Copyright in Its VTD-XML
`Software.
`
`XimpleWare owns all the rights to its VTD-XML software and its source code, which is
`
`copyrightable expression.6 XimpleWare has registered its copyright in version 2.3 of the VTD-
`
`XML source code with the U.S. Copyright Office, and obtained registration no. TX 7-727-556,
`
`with an effective date of September 4, 2013.7
`
` All authors who contributed to VTD-XML have
`
`assigned their rights to XimpleWare.8 XimpleWare’s registration creates an evidentiary
`
`
`1 Declaration of Jack Russo (“Russo Decl.”) ¶¶ 2–5 and Ex. 7.
`2 Russo Decl. ¶¶ 2–5 and Ex. 7; Zhang Decl. ¶¶ 28–31.
`3 Zhang Decl. ¶ 34.
`4 Zhang Decl. ¶ 31.
`5 Zhang Decl. ¶ 31; Russo Decl. Ex. 7 (see last page: Versata’s answer to Interrogatory No. 5 in
`Texas litigation, admitting that it keeps its DCM source code confidential).
`6 “Copyright protection extends to all the copyrightable expression embodied in the computer
`program.” U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 61, “Copyright Registration for Computer Programs,”
`Aug. 2012, available at http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ61.pdf (software and source code
`protected under copyright law as literary works); 17 U.S.C. § 102.
`7 Russo Decl. ¶ 12 and Ex. 8 (copyright registration certificate).
`8 Zhang Decl. ¶¶ 5–23. See also 17 U.S.C. § 201 (ownership of copyrights).
`Ex Parte Application re: TRO, OSC, and Expedited
`4
`Case No. 3:13-cv-5160-NC
`Discovery
`
`
`www.computerlaw.comsm
`Computerlaw Group LLP
`
`

`
`Case3:13-cv-05160-SI Document13 Filed11/24/13 Page9 of 16
`
`
`
`1
`
`presumption that its copyright in the VTD-XML source code is valid, and that XimpleWare owns
`
`2
`
`that copyright.9 Although XimpleWare registered its copyright more than five years after it first
`
`3
`
`published version 2.3 of its VTD-XML source code, the presumption still stands because there is
`
`4
`
`no evidence to actually rebut it, and because definitive records about what happened to the VTD-
`
`5
`
`XML source code are publicly available on XimpleWare’s open source project website10 and in
`
`6
`
`its SourceForge-hosted source code repository.11
`
`7
`
`8
`
`3.
`
`Versata Copied and Sold VTD-XML as Part of Its DCM Product.
`
`Through Ameriprise, XimpleWare has learned that Versata had incorporated
`
`9
`
`XimpleWare’s GPL-licensed VTD-XML source code into Versata’s own DCM product.12
`
`10
`
`Ameriprise itself learned this only through discovery in litigation that is currently pending by
`
`11
`
`Versata against Ameriprise in Texas state court.13
`
`12
`
`In that case, Versata alleged that Ameriprise improperly reverse engineered the DCM
`
`13
`
`product to more easily replace it with a home-grown replacement. Versata produced the source
`
`14
`
`code for DCM in discovery, at which point Ameriprise learned that Versata had included VTD-
`
`15
`
`XML in DCM, apparently without a proper commercial license.
`
`www.computerlaw.comsm
`Computerlaw Group LLP
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`9 17 U.S.C. § 410(c) (“In any judicial proceedings the certificate of a registration made before or
`within five years after first publication of the work shall constitute prima facie evidence of the
`validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate. The evidentiary weight to be
`accorded the certificate of a registration made thereafter shall be within the discretion of the
`court.”).
`10 VTD-XML SourceForge page, http://sourceforge.net/projects/vtd-xml/ (last accessed Nov. 8,
`2013; archived at http://perma.cc/0u2bTwvSjkU).
`11 See, e.g., “Revision Log,” http://vtd-xml.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/vtd-xml/ximple-
`dev/com/ximpleware/VTDNav.java?view=log (last accessed Nov. 8, 2013; archived at
`http://perma.cc/0K5ZTKMRMUF) (log of 132 changes to VTDNav.java source code file in
`XimpleWare’s CVS repository from 2004 to 2013); Zhang Decl. ¶ 11 (identifying “jzhang2004”
`as Jimmy Zhang, XimpleWare’s CEO).
`12 Russo Decl. ¶¶ 2–5 and Ex. 7; Zhang Decl. ¶¶ 28–31.
`13 Russo Ex. 7 (Ameriprise’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed July 24, 2013 against
`Versata in Texas state court case).
`Ex Parte Application re: TRO, OSC, and Expedited
`Discovery
`
`
`5
`
`Case No. 3:13-cv-5160-NC
`
`

`
`Case3:13-cv-05160-SI Document13 Filed11/24/13 Page10 of 16
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Versata Cannot Claim Protection From Any GPL License.
`
`XimpleWare licenses VTD-XML under the GNU General Public License, or GPL.14 The
`
`GPL, like any other software license, is a contract, and it is enforceable.15 The GPL is one of
`
`many “open source” licenses that software developers can use when publishing their source
`
`code. The GPL is widely known among software developers, and is widely understood to be a
`
`very restrictive license in many respects—including its “viral” or “copyleft” provisions. Many
`
`important software products are licensed under the GPL, including, most famously, the free
`
`Linux operating system that powers much of the Internet and underlies the Android smartphone
`
`operating system that powers one billion mobile devices.16
`
`Any person using GPL-licensed software must release any works derived from or
`
`incorporating GPL-licensed code to itself be licensed under the GPL. Section 2(a) of the GPL
`
`states this condition in plain language: “You must cause any work that you distribute or publish,
`
`that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed
`
`as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.”17
`
`Importantly, because judicial admissions are clearly binding on parties who make them in
`
`other litigation, in the Texas litigation, Ameriprise now contends correctly that, under the terms
`
`of the GPL under which XimpleWare licensed VTD-XML, Versata must release the entire source
`
`code for DCM under the GPL.18 This is the so-called “viral” effect of the GPL. To avoid this
`
`outcome, Versata should have obtained a commercial non-GPL license from XimpleWare.
`
`Because it did not obtain a commercial license from XimpleWare, Ameriprise contends that
`
`Versata must license DCM itself under the GPL. Its failure to do so is a breach of Section 2(a)
`
`the GPL—the terms of which Versata accepted myriad times when it downloaded, copied, used,
`
`
`14 Zhang Decl. ¶¶ 8–12 and Ex. 1.
`15 Jacobsen v. Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373, 1378–83 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (discussion of open source
`software and licensing; holding open source license valid and binding on defendant; vacating
`District Court’s denial of injunction and remanding for further proceedings).
`16 Sundar Pichai, Senior Vice President of Google, Google+ post, Sep. 3, 2013,
`https://plus.google.com/+android/posts/CxiQidWrPR6 (“we’ve now passed 1 Billion Android
`device activations”) (last accessed Nov. 8, 2013, archived at http://perma.cc/0BX3Z3euKN9).
`17 Zhang Ex. 1 (GNU General Public License).
`18 Russo Ex. 7 (Ameriprise’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in the Texas litigation).
`Ex Parte Application re: TRO, OSC, and Expedited
`6
`Case No. 3:13-cv-5160-NC
`Discovery
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`www.computerlaw.comsm
`Computerlaw Group LLP
`
`

`
`Case3:13-cv-05160-SI Document13 Filed11/24/13 Page11 of 16
`
`
`
`1
`
`and integrated VTD-XML into DCM. Versata’s wholesale copying of VTD-XML into DCM
`
`2
`
`3
`
`violates Section 2(a) of the GPL and makes Versata’s uses of XimpleWare’s copyrighted
`
`computer software unauthorized and, therefore, a direct infringement of XimpleWare’s
`
`4
`
`exclusive rights under Section 106 of the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et. seq.). A clearer
`
`5
`
`case of copyright infringement by two major corporations against a small privately-held
`
`6
`
`company is hard to imagine.
`
`7
`
`8
`
`5.
`
`Versata Never Had Any Rights to Distribute VTD-XML.
`
`Under the GPL, any party that redistributes or purports to redistribute VTD-XML in a
`
`9
`
`manner that does not fully comply with the GPL’s strict terms, conditions, and provisions never
`
`10
`
`gains any rights to copy or modify VTD-XML. Specifically, section 4 of the GPL states:
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as
`expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify,
`sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your
`rights under this License.19
`
`14
`
`Versata’s distribution of VTD-XML commercially within DCM, without releasing DCM’s source
`
`15
`
`code under the GPL, did not comply with the GPL. Therefore, at that time, Versata never gained
`
`16
`
`(and, put another way, it immediately lost) any right to copy, modify, or distribute VTD-XML.
`
`17
`
`Any copying, modification, or distribution of VTD-XML after Versata’s initial violation was, and
`
`18
`
`is, without XimpleWare’s permission. Thus, the GPL provides no protection for Versata and thus,
`
`www.computerlaw.comsm
`Computerlaw Group LLP
`
`19
`
`none for Ameriprise either.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`6.
`
`Because the GPL Does Not Protect Them, Versata and Ameriprise Are
`Liable for Copyright Infringement Jointly and Severally.
`
`Absent a commercial license to use VTD-XML without releasing DCM under the GPL,
`
`Versata’s Ameriprise’s use of VTD-XML constitutes copyright infringement.
`
`Copyright law grants XimpleWare exclusive rights, including the rights to
`
`“reproduce…prepare derivative works…[and] distribute copies” of the VTD-XML software and
`
`its source code.20 Copyright infringement occurs when a party violates any of those exclusive
`
`
`19 Zhang Ex. 1 (GPL).
`20 17 U.S.C. § 106.
`Ex Parte Application re: TRO, OSC, and Expedited
`Discovery
`
`
`7
`
`Case No. 3:13-cv-5160-NC
`
`

`
`Case3:13-cv-05160-SI Document13 Filed11/24/13 Page12 of 16
`
`
`
`1
`
`rights: “Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by
`
`2
`
`sections 106 through 122…is an infringer of the copyright…”21. “To establish infringement,
`
`3
`
`two elements must be proven: (1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent
`
`4
`
`elements of the work that are original.”22
`
`5
`
`Here, XimpleWare has shown that it owns all the rights in VTD-XML, including all
`
`6
`
`exclusive rights under copyright law. XimpleWare has also shown that Versata and Ameriprise
`
`7
`
`have violated those exclusive rights. This is copyright infringement, and it is continuing,
`
`8
`
`willfully. The Copyright Act expressly provides for both temporary injunctive relief for
`
`9
`
`copyright infringement.23
`
`10
`
`11
`
`D.
`
`The Balance Of Hardships Tips Sharply In XimpleWare’s Favor.
`
`If the Court grants a TRO, Versata will be temporarily enjoined from further sales of its
`
`12
`
`infringing DCM product, and Ameriprise will be temporarily enjoined from deploying DCM to
`
`13
`
`new users. Ceasing one’s violation of the law is not a hardship; it is fair. Further, the scope of this
`
`14
`
`temporary injunctive relief is narrow; XimpleWare is not requesting any relief that would impact
`
`15
`
`existing Ameriprise DCM users or other existing Versata customers.
`
`16
`
`In contrast, if the Court denies XimpleWare’s request for a TRO, XimpleWare will
`
`17
`
`undoubtedly be harmed by Versata’s continuing infringement. More importantly, XimpleWare
`
`18
`
`will have lost control of its key asset: its exclusive rights to license VTD-XML.24
`
`19
`
`Versata’s infringement is far from innocent; it is, in fact, criminal. XimpleWare is
`
`20
`
`informed that the VTD-XML source code that Ameriprise found in DCM had been modified to
`
`21
`
`remove the GPL license information that XimpleWare has always included at the top of every
`
`22
`
`file of its VTD-XML source code.25 Under Section 506(d) of the Copyright Act—which
`
`23
`
`enumerates criminal offenses related to copyright infringement—Versata’s removal of
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`21 17 U.S.C. § 501.
`22 Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991).
`23 17 U.S.C. § 502(a).
`24 Zhang Decl. ¶¶ 25, 32–33.
`25 Exhibit 10 to the Zhang Declaration is a representative example of the beginning of one such
`file with a copyright notice and GPL licensing information.
`Ex Parte Application re: TRO, OSC, and Expedited
`8
`Discovery
`
`
`Case No. 3:13-cv-5160-NC
`
`www.computerlaw.comsm
`Computerlaw Group LLP
`
`

`
`Case3:13-cv-05160-SI Document13 Filed11/24/13 Page13 of 16
`
`
`
`1
`
`XimpleWare’s copyright notice is a crime. 17 U.S.C. § 506(d) (“Any person who, with
`
`2
`
`fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted
`
`3
`
`work shall be fined not more than $2,500”). XimpleWare seeks to confirm these facts in
`
`4
`
`discovery, but the information it has to date raises serious questions meriting—at minimum—a
`
`5
`
`temporary restraining order.
`
`6
`
`7
`
`E.
`
`An Early TRO in This Case Serves The Public Interest.
`
`Halting Versata’s criminal and civil violations of the Copyright Act serves the public
`
`8
`
`interest in upholding copyright law.26 Copyright law itself is contemplated by the Constutition,
`
`9
`
`which enumerates, among Congress’s other powers, that it shall enact laws to “promote the
`
`10
`
`Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
`
`11
`
`exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”27
`
`12
`
`XimpleWare has also sued Versata for reverse passing off in violation of the Lanham
`
`13
`
`Act.28 By incorporating XimpleWare’s VTD-XML software without attribution, Versata misleads
`
`14
`
`the public as to the source of a part of its product. Notably, Versata touts speed—XimpleWare’s
`
`15
`
`key benefit—as one of DCM’s main selling points.29 A TRO thus serves the public interest by
`
`16
`
`stemming the likely confusion resulting from Versata’s unattributed and unlicensed use of
`
`www.computerlaw.comsm
`Computerlaw Group LLP
`
`17
`
`XimpleWare’s software.
`
`18
`
`II.
`
`THE COURT SHOULD GRANT XIMPLEWARE LIMITED EXPEDITED DISCOVERY TO
`SUPPORT ITS TIME-SENSITIVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION.
`
`XimpleWare also seeks expedited discovery to further support its preliminary injunction
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`motion. The Court may grant expedited discovery on a showing of good cause. Semitool, Inc. v.
`
`
`26 Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 673 F. Supp. 2d 943, 950 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (holding “the public
`receives a benefit when the legitimate rights of copyright holders are vindicated” and granting
`permanent injunction in software copyright case with both criminal and civil copyright
`elements).
`27 U.S. Const. art I, § 8, cl. 8. See also Computer Assocs. Int’l v. Quest Software, Inc., 333 F.
`Supp. 2d 688, 701 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 28, 2004) (“The granting of an injunction is in the public
`interest. The public is generally interested in upholding intellectual property rights, encouraging
`creativity and innovation, and rewarding the investm