IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—E.D. Mich.: Did a software engineer do too good of a job as a pro se litigant?, (Mar 19, 2026)

By Matthew Hersh, J.D.

The engineer will have to pay attorney fees, after losing a copyright infringement case, because his adversary had to expend money to respond to his “thoughtful and detailed” arguments in court.

A computer software trainer who represented himself during the course of nearly 15 years of copyright and trademark litigation will have to pay attorney fees to the software company that eventually prevailed at trial, the federal court for the Eastern District of Michigan has held. The court, in granting the award, found that the pro se party was not entitled to leniency because, in a perhaps ironic twist, he “presented his arguments with a professionalism and skill” that required his adversary to expend fees in order to “mount an equally thoughtful and detailed response to his arguments” (Dassault Systemes, SA v. Childress, No. 2:09-cv-10534-MFL-MJH (E.D. Mich. Mar. 16, 2026)).

The attorney fee decision comes at the tail end of more than 15 years of litigation between a French software corporation named Dassault Systèmes, SA, and a Detroit engineering professional and software trainer Childress. In 1996, Childress and his family began a non-profit school to train its clients in the use of a Dassault computer software design program known as CATIA. But the relationship between Dassault and Childress soon turned antagonistic. In 2009, Dassault sued Childress for copyright and trademark infringement alleging Childress improperly copied the CATIA software to work with competitors. Childress, proceeding pro se, brought a wide range of counterclaims under the Sherman Act, the Copyright Act, the Lanham Act, and various other state and common law provisions.

The case has, not surprisingly, an extensive procedural history. In December 2009, the district court entered a default judgment against Childress, but the Sixth Circuit in 2011 set that default aside. After several years of extensive and contentious litigation, a jury in 2017 ruled for Dassault on its copyright infringement claim and in favor of Childress on Dassault's trademark infringement claim. The jury further found that Childress' copyright infringement was not willful. The district judge, taking note of that finding of non-willfulness, along with Childress’s “reasonable motivation to proceed with trial,” declined to award Dassault attorney fees.

But that was not the end of the matter. Both parties then appealed to the Sixth Circuit, which vacated and reversed and ordered that the entire case be re-tried in its entirety. On retrial, in 2024, the jury again ruled for Dassault on its copyright infringement claim and in favor of Childress on Dassault's trademark infringement claim. However, in a departure from the verdict at the first trial, the jury at the re-trial found that Childress had willfully infringed Dassault's copyright.

Dassault then moved for attorney fees, leading to this opinion.

Attorney fees. The court, in its own departure from the first trial, this time awarded attorney fees to Dassault. In the Sixth Circuit, as with some other circuits, the court noted, a grant of fees and costs in a copyright case “is the rule rather than the exception and they should be awarded routinely.” Here, the court found, there was no reason to depart from the traditional circuit practice. To the contrary, the Court concluded “a substantial fee award [was] warranted here for several reasons.”

Most importantly, the court noted, the jury at the March 2024 re­trial found that Childress willfully infringed Dassault's copyright in the CATIA software. That finding of willfulness, the court emphasized, “is an important factor favoring an award of fees.” Indeed, the court noted, “courts have repeatedly found that where a party deliberately refused to comply with copyright laws, the injured party should be awarded attorney's fees” under the Copyright Act. Nor was the original finding against fees immutable as “law of the case,” the court noted, given the different jury finding this time as opposed to in the earlier trial. “Simply put,” the court found, “the jury's finding of willfulness materially changed the posture of this case, and that finding justifies reaching a different conclusion on Dassault's current motion.”

An award of fees was also supported by the statutory purposes of the Copyright Act, the court found, particularly the goals of deterring willful infringement and incentivizing copyright holders to prosecute meritorious copyright claims. Here, the court noted, Dassault had to “engage in a protracted, more-than-a-decade long battle with Childress.” If a copyright holder like Dassault did not have the ability to reclaim the attorney fees it spent pursuing those claims,” the court emphasized, “it may have abandoned them or never tried to enforce those rights in the first place. That would defeat the purpose of the Copyright Act.”

Finally, the court noted, while it was true that Childress litigated the case reasonably despite his status as a pro se party, that factor cut against him rather than for him. Childress argued that an award of fees was not warranted because Dassault had a number of attorneys fighting “against an adversary who was unrepresented by counsel.” But Childress was “no ordinary pro se litigant,” the court noted. “To his great credit, even though he fought much of this case against Dassault without the assistance of retained counsel,” the court emphasized, he presented his arguments with a professionalism and skill that rivaled (and in some cases, exceeded) many of the licensed attorneys who come before the Court.” Thus, the court noted, while the Court did not always agree with Childress’ legal positions, “the manner and skill in which he presented his arguments did require Dassault to mount an equally thoughtful and detailed response to his arguments.” That, too, cut in favor of an award of fees.

The Case is No. 2:09-cv-10534-MFL-MJH.

Judge: Leitman, M.

Attorneys: Douglas P. Lalone (Fisherbroyles, PLLC) for Dassault Systemes, SA. Keith Childress, pro se.

Companies: Dassault Systemes, SA

Cases: Copyright TechnologyInternet MichiganNews GCNNews