Dassault Systemes,SA v. Childress

Filing 88

ORDER REQUIRING ANSWER TO COMPLAINT. Signed by District Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DASSAULT SYSTEMES, S.A.,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 09-10534
Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff

v.
KEITH CHILDRESS
d/b/a PRACTICAL CATIA TRAINING,
Defendant.
/

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO FILE AN ANSWER
Plaintiff filed this action on February 12, 2009, asserting that Defendant was infringing its
copyright and trademark rights and violating the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, Mich. Comp.
Laws § 445.901 regarding Defendant’s use of Plaintiff’s CATIA software. In lieu of answering the
Complaint, Defendant filed several motions. In return, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment.
The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. Defendant then filed a motion requesting
that the Court set aside the entry of default judgment. The Court denied Defendant’s motion,
entered a permanent injunction against Defendant’s use of the CATIA software, and entered a
judgment against Defendant in the amount of $964,465, plus attorney fees and cost. Defendant
appealed the Court’s opinion and order and judgment to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on
August 2, 2010.
On December 13, 2011, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Court’s judgment
in part and remanded the case with instructions, stating:
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment
in part and REVERSE in part. We REVERSE the district court’s
orders granting Dassault’s motion for default judgment and denying
Childress’s motion to set aside entry of default judgment, VACATE

the permanent injunction against Childress and the default-judgment
entry awarding damages to Dassault, and REMAND for proceedings
consistent with this opinion. Because we agree with the district
court’s conclusion that the materials Dassault seeks from the FBI are
not comprised of protected grand jury information, we AFFIRM the
district court’s judgment that Dassault’s subpoena does not violate
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). For the reasons stated
above, we also AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Childress’s
motion to strike.
Dassault Systemes, SA, v. Childress, 663 F.3d 832, 847 (6th Cir. Dec. 13, 2011). On February 9,
2012, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued the mandate allowing this Court to resume its
jurisdiction over this case.
In reviewing the record of this case, Defendant has not yet filed an answer to Plaintiff’s
Complaint. So that this case may proceed forward, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant file
an answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint within 21 days of the entry of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Lawrence P. Zatkoff
LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: February 15, 2012
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Order was served upon the attorneys of record
by electronic or U.S. mail on February 15, 2012.

s/Marie E. Verlinde
Case Manager
[phone]

2