CARY – SAS is declaring victory in its long-running legal fight with UK-based World Programming Limited after the Supreme Court has decided to leave in place an injunction upheld by a US federal district court put in place in 2017.
The appeals court ruling as noted by SAS says: “… WPL cannot participate in the U.S. market, violate U.S. law, and expect to avoid the consequences of its conduct.” “any new customer use” by WPL in the US and also leaves intact a $79 million award ordered payable to SAS. That has not been paid.
WPL had declared its own victory last November in a related copyright case. SAS at that time vowed to keep fighting.
SAS reiterated that the cases are separate.
“Today’s press release relates to earlier rulings against WPL stemming from WPL’s breach of contract and fraud,” Trent Smith, a spokesperson for SAS, said Tuesday.
“By refusing to hear the case, the Supreme Court has left WPL with no additional legal recourse for overturning the injunction against new US sales. WPL also remains responsible for paying SAS the $79 million award.”
Last fall, SAS vowed to keep fighting in the other case.
“SAS is disappointed in the recent copyright decision against SAS, and intends to appeal it,” SAS spokesperson Shannon Heath told WRAL TechWire.
“The recent copyright decision does not disturb any of the earlier rulings against WPL stemming from WPL’s breach of contract and fraud; nor does it change that WPL remains enjoined from licensing WPS to any new customer for use within the United States.”
In a statement Tuesday, SAS said the Supreme Court’s decision to not hear an appeal of a Fourt District court’s ruling to uphold the injunction meant the “exhausting” of WPL’s options.
SAS says WPL “committed fraud and breached license agreements in the creation of WPL’s software, WPS.”
SAS noted the court’s ruling said: “Since the case was last before this court, WPL has tried to evade, in every way and at every turn, using any revenues for satisfaction of the U.S. judgment … Instead of making a good-faith effort to pay up, WPL has repeatedly engaged in collateral attacks on the district court’s judgment by calling upon the U.K. court system.”
“When WPL decided to offer a competing product, it took a short cut,” the appeals court continued. “In violation of a license agreement, WPL reverse engineered a SAS product to speed development of its own product. … This is not the sort of ‘innovation’ or ‘competition’ encouraged by U.S. law.”