IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—D. Del.: Distributor of Python-based software loses early skirmish with Airbus, (Jan 16, 2026)

By Matthew Hersh, J.D.

The airplane manufacturing consortium can continue to use AI-related software packages while trial is pending.

A company that compiles packages of AI-related open-source software written in the Python code was not entitled to stop Airbus from using its products while a copyright infringement and breach of contract lawsuit is pending, the federal court for Delaware has held. The court, in denying the software company’s motion for a preliminary injunction, handed an early victory to the European airplane manufacturing consortium in one of several active lawsuits over whether the software company added enough creativity to its otherwise open-source products to merit protection under copyright law (Airbus SAS v. Anaconda, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-00178-CFC-SRF (D. Del. Jan. 15, 2026)).

The lawsuit arises out of a dispute between Airbus and Anaconda, a company that distributes open-source software in the Python programing language for developers working within the field of artificial intelligence. Although Anaconda does not write the underlying software itself, one of its central business models, known as Anaconda Distribution, consists of combining multiple different libraries of third-party code into integrated “packages” that can be downloaded and used by AI developers. Although Anaconda has traditionally offered those packages to most users on a free, open-source basis, it changed its terms of use in 2020 to require large users to pay a licensing fee. That change of license terms has led to recent lawsuits between Anaconda and several large corporate entities, including Dell, Intel, and Alibaba.

The Airbus entities initiated the action by filing a demand for declaratory judgment in the District Court for Delaware. The complaint asserts that Anaconda has accused Airbus of infringing on its copyrights, has threatened to sue for infringement, and has demanded millions of dollars in licensing fees. The complaint also asserts that Anaconda’s contributions to its downloadable packages are not themselves copyrightable since they allegedly “lack the creativity and originality necessary for copyright to subsist,” “consist primarily of non-copyrightable words and short phrases,” or are “functional” in that they were dictated by code specifications and thus “not creative.”

Anaconda filed an answer and counterclaim in which it brought claims of copyright infringement and contract breach against Airbus. Anaconda also filed a motion for preliminary injunction leading to this opinion.

Motion for preliminary injunction. The court denied the motion for preliminary injunction. Anaconda sought an injunction precluding Airbus from continuing to use Anaconda’s software as well as an order that Airbus hire a forensic examiner to confirm that all Anaconda products had been removed from Airbus computer systems. Anaconda claimed that in the absence of the injunction, Airbus’s disparagement of the copyrightability of Anaconda’s product and its continued use of the product without compensation would erode Anaconda’s reputation, undermine potential growth and licensing revenues, harm talent recruitment, and harm business development efforts. The court was not persuaded.

Anaconda did not show the irreparable harm necessary for a preliminary injunction, the court found, for three reasons. First, the court noted, to the extent that any of the alleged harm arose out of statements made by Airbus in its own complaint, that was not actionable because statements made in litigation enjoy an “absolute privilege” from liability. Moreover, the court noted, outside of the statements in the lawsuit, Anaconda had adduced “no record evidence” to show that the filing of the lawsuit, the open use of Anaconda’s software by Airbus, or the disparagement of Anaconda’s copyright by Airbus, had, “individually or in combination,” “caused Anaconda to suffer any of the five alleged harms.” Finally, the court observed, two of Anaconda’s alleged harms were purely economic injuries while “the remaining three alleged harms [were] alleged only in conclusory fashion.”

The court’s finding of an insufficient showing of irreparable harm was also buttressed by Anaconda’s own behavior in the litigation. Anaconda did not move for preliminary relief until October 2025, the court noted—“six months after bringing its counterclaims and nineteen months after the latest period Anaconda alleges Airbus began to engage in the unauthorized use” of its products. Anaconda then agreed to a briefing schedule for the motion that was not completed until January 2026, the court noted—further confirming that Anaconda would not be harmed irreparably by having to wait for the adjudication of its counterclaims at trial.

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-00178-CFC-SRF.

Judge: Connolly, C.

Attorneys: Grayson P. Sundermeir (Fish & Richardson, PC) for Airbus SAS, Airbus DS Government Solutions, Inc., Airbus Helicopters, Inc., Airbus U.S. Space & Defense, Inc., Airbus Americas, Inc., and Airbus Defence and Space Ltd. Kelly E. Farnan (Richards, Layton & Finger, PA) for Anaconda, Inc.

Companies: Airbus Sas; Airbus DS Government Solutions, Inc.; Airbus Helicopters, Inc.; Airbus U.S. Space & Defense, Inc.; Airbus Americas, Inc.; Airbus Defence and Space Ltd.; Anaconda, Inc.

Cases: Copyright TechnologyInternet DelawareNews GCNNews