UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. _________________
`
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`
`WORLD PROGRAMMING LIMITED,
`MINEQUEST BUSINESS ANALYTICS,
`LLC, MINEQUEST LLC, ANGOSS
`SOFTWARE CORPORATION, LUMINEX
`SOFTWARE, INC., YUM! BRANDS, INC.,
`PIZZA HUT, INC., SHAW INDUSTRIES
`GROUP, INC., and HITACHI VANTARA
`CORPORATION,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`SAS INSTITUTE INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`Plaintiff SAS Institute Inc. (“SAS”) makes the following allegations against Defendants
`World Programming Limited (“WPL”), MineQuest Business Analytics, LLC and MineQuest,
`LLC (collectively, “MineQuest”), Angoss Software Corporation (“Angoss”), Luminex Software,
`Inc. (“Luminex”), Yum! Brands, Inc. (“Yum”), Pizza Hut, Inc. (“Pizza Hut”), Shaw Industries
`Group, Inc. (“Shaw”), and Hitachi Vantara Corporation (“Hitachi”), (collectively “Defendants”).
`SAS alleges that all Defendants are liable to SAS for copyright infringement of the SAS System
`and SAS Manuals, described below. SAS alleges that WPL, MineQuest, Angoss, and Luminex
`are liable to SAS for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement of the SAS System and
`SAS Manuals. SAS alleges that Defendants WPL, Angoss, Yum, and Pizza Hut are liable for
`infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,170,519 (“the ’519 Patent”), 7,447,686 (“the ’686 Patent”), and
`8,498,996 (“the ’996 Patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”).
`
`
`SAS Institute Inc.
`EXHIBIT 2002
`Page 1 of 65
`
`

`

`THE NATURE OF THE ACTION
`This is an action for (a) copyright infringement arising out of Defendants’ willful
`1.
`infringement of various copyrighted SAS materials, and (b) the willful infringement of SAS’s
`Patents-in-Suit by WPL, Angoss, Yum, and Pizza Hut.
`Starting as early as 2003, WPL commenced a plan to create a clone of SAS’s
`2.
`industry-leading business analytics software, including without limitation SAS’s SAS System,
`Release 8.2, and SAS Learning Edition versions 1.0, 2.0, and 4.1 (collectively, including all other
`releases of SAS’s business analytics software, the “SAS System”). Through a series of illegal
`activities, including fraud and unfair and deceptive trade practices, WPL copied the design output
`and structure, sequence, and organization (“SSO”) of the SAS System as well as substantial other
`non-literal creative input and output elements of the SAS System. WPL also wrongfully copied
`the manuals that SAS created for the SAS System (the “SAS Manuals”) by taking portions of the
`SAS Manuals showing specific creative aspects of the SAS System and incorporating them in
`WPL’s clone of the SAS System.
`From the beginning of its development, the entire purpose of WPL’s World
`3.
`Programming System (“WPS”) software was to be a clone of the SAS System. The primary
`customer market for the WPS software is current and former SAS customers. In WPS, WPL
`intended to develop, and ultimately has developed, through making copies and derivative works
`of the SAS System and SAS Manuals, a clone of the proprietary SAS software, which WPL
`markets to SAS customers for less than the cost of a SAS license.
`To develop WPS, WPL engaged in a series of illegal activities and illicit behaviors
`4.
`to procure the information it needed to create the cloned software. Among other things, through
`fraudulent actions, WPL improperly acquired SAS Learning Edition software not otherwise
`available to it and used that software in ways that violated and were outside the scope of the license
`agreement that WPL knowingly executed after obtaining the improper copy of SAS Learning
`Edition. Also, WPL attempted to fraudulently obtain a copy of and a license to the full version of
`the SAS System, including by lying to SAS representatives with regard to the purpose of WPL’s
`
`2
`
`SAS Institute Inc.
`EXHIBIT 2002
`Page 2 of 65
`
`

`

`intended use of the SAS software. SAS refused to provide a copy.
`When WPL was rebuffed from obtaining the full version of SAS’s software, WPL
`5.
`then wrongfully convinced a SAS customer to let WPL use the customer’s licensed version of the
`SAS software so that WPL could further develop WPS as a clone of SAS’s software.
`In addition to infringing SAS’s copyrights relating to the SAS System and Manuals,
`6.
`WPS incorporates technology covered by SAS’s Patents-in-Suit.
`PARTIES
`Plaintiff SAS is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of North
`7.
`Carolina with its principal place of business at 100 SAS Campus Drive, Cary, North Carolina
`27513. SAS has been in business for over 40 years. SAS software is used by most of the Fortune
`500 companies. SAS is considered the world leader in business intelligence software and service,
`which SAS offers primarily through an integrated range of software products in the SAS System.
`On information and belief, Defendant WPL is a private limited company
`8.
`incorporated under the laws of England and Wales with its registered office address listed as
`Worsley Lodge, Common Hill, Braishfield, Romsey SO51 0QF. On information and belief, WPL
`was incorporated in 1998 under the name Management Technologies Limited and thereafter
`changed its name on at least two occasions, adopting its current name in 2006.
`On information and belief, Defendant MineQuest Business Analytics, LLC is a
`9.
`limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Arizona with its principal place
`of business at 6890 E. Sunrise Drive #120-154, Tucson, Arizona 85750. On information and
`belief, MineQuest Business Analytics, LLC regularly provides, sells, or offers to sell infringing
`WPS software to customers in the State of Texas and this judicial district.
`On information and belief, Defendant MineQuest, LLC is a domestic limited
`10.
`liability company organized under the laws of Ohio with its principal place of business at 6890 E.
`Sunrise Drive #120-154, Tucson, Arizona 85750. On information and belief, MineQuest, LLC
`regularly provides, sells, or offers to sell infringing WPS software to customers in the State of
`Texas and this judicial district.
`
`3
`
`SAS Institute Inc.
`EXHIBIT 2002
`Page 3 of 65
`
`

`

`On information and belief, Defendant Angoss is a corporation organized under the
`11.
`laws of Ontario, Canada with its principal place of business at headquarters at 330 Bay Street,
`Suite 200, Toronto, ON M5H 2S8, Canada. On information and belief, Angoss regularly provides,
`sells, or offers to sell infringing WPS software (incorporated in its KnowledgeCORE add-on) to
`customers in the State of Texas and this judicial district.
`On information and belief, Defendant Luminex is a corporation organized under
`12.
`the laws of California with its principal place of business at 871 Marlborough Ave., Suite 100,
`Riverside, California. On information and belief, Luminex regularly provides, sells or offers to
`sell infringing WPS software to customers in the State of Texas and this judicial district.
`On information and belief, Defendant Yum is a corporation organized under the
`13.
`laws of the State of North Carolina, with its principal place of business at 1441 Gardiner Lane,
`Louisville, Kentucky 40213. On information and belief, Yum maintains a corporate office within
`this judicial district at 7100 Corporate Drive, Plano, Texas 75024.
`On information and belief, Defendant Pizza Hut is a corporation organized under
`14.
`the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business within this judicial district
`at 7100 Corporate Drive, Plano, Texas 75024.
`On information and belief, Defendant Shaw is a corporation organized under the
`15.
`laws of the State of Georgia, with its principal place of business at 616 East Walnut Avenue,
`Dalton, GA 30721. On information and belief, Shaw regularly transacts business in the State of
`Texas and this judicial district and generally has minimum contacts in the State of Texas
`On information and belief, Defendant Hitachi is a corporation organized under the
`16.
`laws of Delaware with its principal place of business at 2845 Lafayette St., Santa Clara, California.
`On information and belief, Hitachi regularly transacts business in the State of Texas and this
`judicial district and generally has minimum contacts in the State of Texas.
`JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND JOINDER
`This is an action for copyright infringement and patent infringement arising under
`17.
`the Copyright Laws of the United States, Title 17 of the United States Code and the Patent Laws
`
`4
`
`SAS Institute Inc.
`EXHIBIT 2002
`Page 4 of 65
`
`

`

`of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction
`pursuant to at least 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they have at least
`18.
`minimum contacts within the State of Texas; they have purposefully availed themselves of the
`privileges of conducting business in the State of Texas; they regularly conduct business within the
`State of Texas; and SAS’s causes of action arise directly from their business and other activities
`in the State of Texas, including at least by virtue of their copying, making, using, selling, offering
`for sale, or importing of WPL’s WPS software in the State of Texas. Further, this Court has general
`jurisdiction over Defendants, including due to their continuous and systematic contacts with the
`State of Texas.
`Venue is proper in this district in relation to Defendant WPL under 28 U.S.C. §
`19.
`1391 because it is a foreign corporation not resident in the United States.
`Venue is proper in this district in relation to Defendant MineQuest Business
`20.
`Analytics, LLC under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a) because it is subject to personal jurisdiction in this
`district and can be found in this district.
`Venue is proper in this district in relation to Defendant MineQuest, LLC under 28
`21.
`U.S.C. § 1400(a) because it is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District and can be found in
`this District.
`Venue is proper in this district in relation to Defendant Angoss under 28 U.S.C. §
`22.
`1391 because it is a foreign corporation not resident in the United States.
`Venue is proper in this district in relation to Defendant Luminex under 28 U.S.C. §
`23.
`1400(a) because it is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district and can be found in this district.
`Venue is proper in this district in relation to Defendant Yum under 28 U.S.C. §
`24.
`1400(a) because it is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district and can be found in this district.
`Further, venue is proper in this district as to Yum under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because, on
`information and belief, it has a regular and established place of business in this district and has
`committed acts of infringement within this district.
`
`5
`
`SAS Institute Inc.
`EXHIBIT 2002
`Page 5 of 65
`
`

`

`Venue is proper in this district in relation to Defendant Pizza Hut under 28 U.S.C.
`25.
`§ 1400(a) because it is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district and can be found in this
`district. Further, venue is proper in this district as to Pizza Hut under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because,
`on information and belief, it has a regular and established place of business in this district and has
`committed acts of infringement within this district.
`Venue is proper in this district in relation to Defendant Shaw under 28 U.S.C. §
`26.
`1400(a) because it is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district and can be found in this district.
`Venue is proper in this district in relation to Defendant Hitachi under 28 U.S.C. §
`27.
`1400(a) because it is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district and can be found in this district.
`Joinder of the Defendants is proper under 35 U.S.C. § 299 as the patent
`28.
`infringement allegations arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
`occurrences relating to the making, using, importing into the United States, offering for sale, or
`selling of the same accused product or process, namely WPL’s WPS software and Angoss’s
`KnowledgeCORE software that incorporates WPL’s WPS software. Questions of fact common to
`all Defendants will arise in this action. Discovery in this action may lead to the need to add
`additional defendants subject to the same claims and common questions of fact.
`SAS AND THE SAS SYSTEM
`SAS has been in business for over 40 years. SAS is a world leader in business
`29.
`intelligence software and services primarily offered through an integrated range of software
`products known as the “SAS System.” The SAS System enables users to perform a variety of
`tasks related to data access, data management, data analysis (including statistical analysis), and
`data presentation.
`The SAS System reflects numerous creative decisions and millions of hours of
`30.
`difficult development and programming work on the part of thousands of SAS employees over
`several decades. The SAS System represents an extraordinary achievement in the field of data
`management and analysis software, and constitutes extremely valuable intellectual property.
`The SAS System is the result of thousands of creative choices. The structure,
`31.
`
`6
`
`SAS Institute Inc.
`EXHIBIT 2002
`Page 6 of 65
`
`

`

`sequence, and operation (“SSO”) of the SAS System is by no means mandated by any particular
`idea or function. SAS could have put together the SSO of the SAS System in many different ways.
`The SSO of the SAS System encompasses the creative expression and creative choices made by
`SAS.
`
`In addition, the taxonomy of the SAS System, including without limitation the
`32.
`headers, commands, and inputs, are the result of many creative choices representing SAS creative
`expression. This taxonomy (along with the SAS System SSO) is partially reflected in the SAS
`System through creatively designed programs called “PROCs,” each of which encompasses
`numerous creative choices by SAS. The naming and taxonomy as well as the SSO and output
`design of the programming making up a PROC represents the expression of the PROC program
`written by SAS within the SAS System. There is no requirement that the various PROCs are
`written or structured exactly the way they are to express the idea or function of the program. Nor
`is the naming system of PROCs mandated in any way by any idea or function. The PROC names
`as well as the lines of programming, SSO and output of the PROCs (collectively, the “PROC
`statements”) are all creative choices made by SAS, and the collection of PROC names also
`represents a substantial creative and copyrightable work as well as a copyrightable compilation.
`The outputs and output design of the SAS System also are a result of many creative
`33.
`choices by SAS. The visuals, colors, layout, arrangement, organization, and structure that make
`up the SAS System outputs are not inevitable results of the ideas and/or functions in the SAS
`System; rather, they are creative expression, the result of creative choices of visuals, colors, and
`structure, as well as the types of data that will be presented to the user of the SAS System and in
`what order they will be presented. Numerous programs on the market handle data access, data
`management, data analysis, and data presentation, and the outputs of those programs all look
`different from one another. SAS made creative choices in deciding how its outputs should be
`expressed.
`The user of the SAS System works with and enters his or her programs into the
`34.
`SAS System by use of the SAS System’s graphical user interfaces. The appearance of the SAS
`
`7
`
`SAS Institute Inc.
`EXHIBIT 2002
`Page 7 of 65
`
`

`

`System’s graphical user interfaces is the result of significant creative choices made by SAS.
`SAS creates many manuals to help its customers navigate the SAS System. In order
`35.
`to best train its customers on use of the SAS System, the SAS Manuals describe portions of and
`show specific creative expression of the SAS System in detail, including discussion and examples
`of PROCs, and pictures of the output design that will be generated from the various PROCs. The
`SAS Manuals provide a window into how the SAS System source code is designed as well as
`showing large portions of the taxonomy, inputs, commands, PROCs, PROC statements, SSO and
`output design of the SAS System.
`In order to protect the value of its intellectual property incorporated into the SAS
`36.
`System, SAS takes a number of steps to prevent other companies and individuals from improperly
`developing software designed to copy and/or emulate the SAS System. Examples of such steps
`include, but are not limited to: (1) registering versions of its manuals and its software licensed to
`the public with the United States Copyright Office, (2) maintaining portions of its source code as
`a proprietary trade secret, (3) guarding against licensing its software to companies or individuals
`that might misuse it (such as attempting to create a copy-cat product emulating the SAS System
`or other components of the SAS software), (4) licensing its software in a manner which restricts
`who may access the software and imposing limitations on the types of permitted use of the
`software, and (5) filing for and obtaining patent protection covering inventions developed by SAS.
`The Patents-in-Suit arose from the efforts and inventiveness of SAS employees
`37.
`developing and adding to the feature-set of the SAS System. In addition to the Patents-in-Suit,
`SAS has developed and owns hundreds of other patents relating to the SAS System, including U.S.
`Patent Nos. 6,526,408, 6,920,458, 7,015,911, 7,068,267, 7,340,440, 7,921,359, 7,979,858,
`8,271,537, 8,682,876, and 8,694,525.
`Users of the SAS System access, manage, and analyze data to present or provide
`38.
`results by issuing instructions to the SAS System. Those instructions typically take the form of
`text files containing instructions and are generally referred to as “SAS Programs” or “SAS
`Scripts.” SAS Programs are written in a programming language developed and maintained by
`
`8
`
`SAS Institute Inc.
`EXHIBIT 2002
`Page 8 of 65
`
`

`

`SAS known as the SAS Language. These SAS Programs may, and often do, become integral to a
`customer’s organization.
`The SAS Language is very flexible. Over the years, SAS’s customers have written,
`39.
`or had written on their behalf, thousands of application programs in the SAS Language. These can
`range from fairly short and simple programs to large and complex programs that involve many
`man-years to create. SAS customers write programs using the PROC statements created by SAS
`and made part of the SAS System. It is not the other way around, where the customer writes a
`program and then SAS or the SAS System has to create PROC statements (in a specific way or
`otherwise) to then make that program work.
`SAS has invested tremendous financial resources and man-hours into ensuring that
`40.
`when its customers’ SAS Language Programs are put into the SAS System, they will be presented
`with a very creative and specific structure and output design that was chosen by SAS from among
`many possible SSOs and output designs, and is unique to the SAS System. SAS creates
`documentation, employs technical support staff, and provides training sessions and materials for
`SAS customers using the SAS System.
`WPL and the World Programming System
`SAS faces a number of well-known and established competitors in the market for
`41.
`business intelligence software that compete with SAS by offering their own software. These
`competitors, unlike WPL, have created their own systems, as opposed to simply copying the
`system and creative expression of SAS.
`Beginning in or about 2003, WPL sought to illegally circumvent SAS’s intellectual
`42.
`property protection of the SAS System. WPL endeavored to create a clone of SAS software, which
`not only would be able to execute application programs written in the SAS Language, but also
`would use the exact same taxonomy, user interface, inputs, commands, compilation of PROC
`statements, and SSO that were creatively chosen by SAS, and produce the same output in the same
`format and with the same design creatively chosen by SAS as a result. In other words, WPL sought
`not only to replicate the SAS System’s functionality, but also to copy the creative elements of the
`
`9
`
`SAS Institute Inc.
`EXHIBIT 2002
`Page 9 of 65
`
`

`

`SAS System so that the look, design, and SSO would be the same as the SAS System. WPL
`therefore developed the WPS software in order to attract SAS’s existing licensees by making them
`believe that they would essentially be getting the exact same product as the SAS System. SAS’s
`customers comprise the vast majority of WPL’s market. WPL’s current or former customers for
`WPS identified in non-confidential materials and public sources include AXA, BCBSNEPA (Blue
`Cross Blue Shield Northeastern Pennsylvania), Texas Instruments Inc., BCBST (Blue Cross Blue
`Shield Tennessee), Electronic Data Systems (EDS), Experian PLC, Fidelity, First Data, Franklin
`Templeton Companies Inc., Highmark, Huntington National Bank, IMS Health Inc. (Quintiles),
`KeyBank, Limited Brands, Lender Processing Services (Fidelity National Financial / Black Knight
`InfoServ), Mastercard, Oracle, Sabre Holdings, T. Rowe Price, and Toyota.
` WPL intended WPS to be a drop-in replacement clone of the SAS System. In prior
`43.
`litigation between SAS and WPL, WPL admitted that (with limited exceptions) “the response of
`WPS to SAS scripts and data is intended to be identical to the response of the SAS components
`and is in fact identical.”
`In marketing WPS, WPL touts its ability “to emulate the behavior of the SAS
`44.
`System Implementation for many applications” by “identically replicating the behavior of the SAS
`System.” In fact, WPL designed its system to emulate even the idiosyncrasies of the SAS System,
`down to thousands of SAS’s creative choices regarding taxonomy, user interface, inputs,
`commands, PROC statements, SSO, and output designs.
`In order to create the copycat of the SAS System that WPS embodies, WPL engaged
`45.
`in numerous nefarious acts discussed in more detail below.
`The SAS/WPL North Carolina Litigation
`On January 19, 2010, SAS filed suit against WPL in the United States District Court
`46.
`for the Eastern District of North Carolina alleging (1) copyright infringement, (2) breach of license
`agreement (alternatively, (3) tortious interference with contract), (4) tortious interference with
`prospective economic advantage, and (5) unfair and deceptive trade practices/unfair competition
`(the “North Carolina Litigation”). Based on discovery obtained during the North Carolina
`
`10
`
`SAS Institute Inc.
`EXHIBIT 2002
`Page 10 of 65
`
`

`

`Litigation, the court allowed SAS to amend its Complaint to allege that WPL obtained licenses to
`use certain SAS software by fraud.
`The causes of action in the North Carolina Litigation all stem from WPL’s efforts
`47.
`to design the WPS as a clone of the SAS System. At virtually every step in WPL’s development
`efforts, WPL copied the SAS System, breached its license agreement for SAS software, and relied
`on and/or induced other SAS licensees to breach their license agreements with SAS.
`Discovery in prior litigation revealed that WPL’s first stage of development was to
`48.
`review and copy from the SAS Manuals obtained from SAS’s website. The SAS Manuals give an
`extensive window into the creative expression of the SAS System because they describe portions
`of and show specific creative expression of the SAS System in detail, including discussion and
`examples of PROCs, and pictures of the output design that will be generated from the various
`PROCs. The manuals, however, often did not fully provide the detail necessary for WPL to
`completely replicate either the functionality or all the creative choices of the SAS System. Thus,
`WPL also used the software known as SAS Learning Edition (which was a limited and restricted
`version of the SAS System designed to allow students and potential users to learn to use the SAS
`System) to develop WPS.
`Throughout the years of development, WPL obtained at least twelve copies of the
`49.
`SAS Learning Edition. When installing the SAS Learning Edition, WPL was presented with the
`SAS Learning Edition license agreement and was required to agree to its terms as a condition to
`installation. Those terms prohibited (among other things) the user from (1) using the program for
`production purposes, and (2) reverse assembling, reverse engineering, decompiling, or otherwise
`attempting to recreate SAS’s source code. WPL intentionally and repeatedly violated these terms
`by using the SAS Learning Edition to design and develop its competing product, WPS. WPL also
`repeatedly attempted to obtain licenses to the full version of the SAS System by attempting to
`mislead SAS as to why they were seeking a license; WPL was rebuffed on each attempt.
`Having failed to obtain a license to the SAS System directly through SAS, WPL
`50.
`improperly gained access to the full version of the SAS System by wrongfully using SAS software
`
`11
`
`SAS Institute Inc.
`EXHIBIT 2002
`Page 11 of 65
`
`

`

`licensed by at least one of SAS’s customers.
`51. WPL improperly gained access to the full version of the SAS System another way.
`In or about 2003, WPL was contacted by a company called CA Technologies (“CA”). CA offered
`a software product called MICS that ran on the SAS System. MICS is a large, complicated program
`that is run on a mainframe computer.
`Upon information and belief, CA was interested in WPS as a less expensive
`52.
`alternative to the SAS System for providing MICS to its customers at a lower cost. CA worked
`with WPL over the next several years to create a version of WPS that could run MICS. CA and
`WPL called this secret effort “Project X.”
`As WPL contractor Steve Bagshaw testified, CA gave WPL access to the SAS
`53.
`System on CA’s mainframe in an attempt to speed up the process. Later, in May of 2008, WPL
`again requested, and CA granted, access to CA’s SAS System.
`CA’s license agreement with SAS, however, provided that CA would not “provide
`54.
`or otherwise make available any licensed IPP [SAS Institute Program Products] in any form to any
`person other than [CA’s] personnel.”
`In addition to work on Project X, WPL also did work for other of its customers on
`55.
`CA’s mainframe. In one instance, one of WPL’s customers, SDDK, reported an issue regarding
`certain missing information in WPS. WPL then used the CA system to test the output of both SAS
`and WPS, and reported the results.
`56. WPL’s intent, evidenced at least by the WPS program itself and WPL’s various
`statements and actions, was to make sure to copy significant non-literal elements of the SAS
`System, duplicating thousands of SAS creative choices and resulting in the same taxonomy, user
`interface, inputs, commands, SSO, and output designs.
`These and other actions by WPL were introduced into evidence in prior litigation
`57.
`between the parties. Ultimately, following a jury trial, SAS prevailed on its breach of contract,
`fraud, and unfair and deceptive trade practices claims resulting in a judgment totaling over $79
`million.
`
`12
`
`SAS Institute Inc.
`EXHIBIT 2002
`Page 12 of 65
`
`

`

`The District Court in the North Carolina Litigation found that the evidence showed
`58.
`that “[WPL] used underhanded and fraudulent methods to acquire Learning Edition licenses” and
`that “[WPL] used the Learning Edition software to create a virtual clone of the SAS System.”
`Memorandum Opinion and Order, Case No. 5:10-cv-00025, ECF 599, at 11, 26.
`The judgments in favor of SAS in the North Carolina Litigation were affirmed by
`59.
`the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
`A District Court decision on SAS’s copyright infringement claim was completely
`60.
`vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. On remand, the District
`Court dismissed the copyright infringement claim without prejudice. Thus, for purposes of the
`law, SAS’s copyright claims in that case are treated as if they never happened and no ruling on its
`merits was ever made.
`
`WPL’S CUSTOMERS AND RESELLERS
`61. WPL’s target market for the WPS software consists primarily of SAS customers.
`The main benefit of WPS touted by WPL is that customers of SAS can use their
`62.
`existing SAS Programs and SAS datasets with the WPS software to obtain the same results that
`the SAS System would produce, including all of the SAS creative choices, such as use of the same
`taxonomy, user interface, inputs, commands, SSO, and output designs and formats, all for a lower
`license fee.
`63. When customers license and use WPS, they make copies and derivative works of
`the infringing WPS software, and therefore wrongfully copy the SAS System (and the SAS
`Manuals, which have been incorporated into WPS), in numerous ways, including without
`limitation by copying the SAS System when it is installed on their computers, when it is loaded
`into memory as it is being run, and when it is generating logs and outputs.
`64. WPL also provides its knock-off SAS System clone to other companies such as
`MineQuest, Angoss, and Luminex (collectively, “Re-Sellers”), who provide, sell, or offer to sell
`copies of the infringing system, and therefore wrongful copies and derivative works of the SAS
`System and the SAS Manuals, to current, former, and potential customers of SAS in competition
`
`13
`
`SAS Institute Inc.
`EXHIBIT 2002
`Page 13 of 65
`
`

`

`with SAS.
`Defendant Angoss sells three differing levels of business analytics software:
`65.
`KnowledgeSEEKER, KnowledgeSTUDIO,
`and KnowledgeENTERPRISE.
`
`See
`of
`http://www.angoss.com/predictive-analytics-software/software/.
`
`For
`each
`these
`products/levels, the purchaser or licensee can opt for a KnowledgeCORE add-on that allows the
`Angoss software the ability to read and run SAS Programs utilizing the WPS software. Angoss
`advertises this functionality, acknowledges it is powered by WPS software, and calls WPL “A
`Partner Organization.” See https://youtu.be/NnZZUCq7ZX0.
`On information and belief, WPL customers and Re-Sellers are aware WPS is
`66.
`intended as a SAS clone.
`On information and belief, certain WPL customers and/or Re-Sellers are aware of
`67.
`WPL’s prior litigation with SAS and further are aware of the legal risks of utilizing and copying
`the WPS software.
`On information and belief, in response to customer and/or Re-Seller demand, WPL
`68.
`indemnifies its customers and Re-Sellers against infringement of intellectual property claims.
`Customers of WPL and Re-Sellers of products incorporating WPL’s knock-off
`69.
`system knew or should have known that the SAS System and the SAS Manuals were proprietary
`and covered by a plethora of intellectual property rights.
`The customers that have licensed WPS (such as Defendants Yum, Pizza Hut, Shaw,
`70.
`and Hitachi) either ignored these intellectual property rights, or determined that their violation was
`worth the risk in light of the touted cost savings from switching to the cloned WPS software.
`The Re-Sellers also ignored these intellectual property rights, or determined that
`71.
`their violation was worth the risk in light of the touted cost savings and profits from selling the
`cloned WPS software.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`SAS Institute Inc.
`EXHIBIT 2002
`Page 14 of 65
`
`

`

`DEFENDANTS’ INFRINGEMENT OF THE COPYRIGHTS IN THE
`SAS SYSTEM AND THE SAS MANUALS
`The SAS System, in its various releases and iterations with updates, and including
`72.
`the SAS Learning Edition and the SAS Manuals, are subject to well over 100 Copyright
`Registrations, each duly registered with the United States Copyright Office.
`The code making up the SAS System is subject to copyright protection under
`73.
`United States law.
`In addition, many elements of the SAS System, separate from the source code, and
`74.
`often referred to under the law as the non-literal elements of the program, are also subject to
`copyright protection under United States law.
`Non-literal elements of the SAS System protected under copyright law include
`75.
`without limitation the SAS System’s taxonomy, user interface, inputs, commands, PROC
`statements and compilation of PROC statements, SSO, and output designs. The taxonomy itself
`includes without limitation the overall system of organized names of without limitation Global
`statements, formats, informats, Data Step statements, Data Step functions, CALL routines,