IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—N.D. Cal.: Copyright infringement case against data management software licensee dismissed, (Apr 9, 2026)

By Brian Craig, J.D.

Bare allegations of copyright infringement that a software licensee distributed copies of the software to third parties without any particularized facts are insufficient.

In a copyright infringement case brought by licensor Actian Corporation over software for data management and analytics against Itron, Inc. alleging that the licensee exceeded the scope of license agreements, the federal district court in San Jose, California has dismissed all claims. In granting the motion to dismiss, the court concluded that the direct copyright infringement claims fail because the bare allegations that the software licensee distributed copies of the software to third parties without any particularized facts are insufficient where the complaint does not contain any particularized factual allegations in connection with the alleged breach of the agreements. The court also dismissed the claims for vicarious and contributory copyright infringement, breach of contract, and negligence, but the court granted permission for the licensor to amend the complaint (Actian Corp. v. Itron, Inc., No. 5:25-cv-08914-BLF (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2026)).

Actian Corporation (“Actian”) is a software company that develops technologies for data management and analytics, including a database management system known as Pervasive PSQL and Actian Zen. The software, which is protected by several copyright registrations, is used in packaged software applications and used by original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”) for implementation in various business solutions requiring database management. Itron is a technology company that supplies technology and software that enables energy and water utilities to create, monitor, receive, and send data from smart grids built on its technology. The parties signed a series of end user license agreements (“EULAs”) starting in 2007. Actian alleges that Itron engaged in unlicensed distribution of the software by deploying the software on Microsoft’s Azure cloud hosting platform and distributing copies of the software to third parties, including customers. Action filed suit in the federal district court alleging direct copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, breach of contract, and negligence. The licensee Itron moved to dismiss the complaint.

Direct copyright infringement. The court concluded that the complaint fails to plausibly allege direct copyright infringement. The court observed that only where the licensee acts outside of the scope of the license by violating a condition of the license may the copyright owner bring a claim for copyright infringement. In this case, the complaint alleges that the licensee exceeded its license by reproducing and distributing copies of the software directly and using the software for Saas, multiplexing, or pooling. While the court recognized that unlicensed distribution of software in violation of the EULAs could plausibly form the basis of a cognizable copyright claim, that is not the case here. The complaint does not contain any particularized factual allegations in connection with the alleged breach of the EULAs. A bare assertion is insufficient to demonstrate that Itron exceeded its authorization to use the software on a single server, use the software in connection with its use of the server edition license, or permit a total number of concurrent users less than or equal to its user account to use the license. Thus, the complaint fails to state a claim for direct copyright infringement.

Contributory copyright infringement. Because the complaint fails to allege direct copyright liability, Actian’s secondary liability claims for vicarious and contributory infringement also fail. In addition, the complaint contains no allegation that the asserted copyrights were registered in the Copyright Office within the earlier of three months after first publication of the work or one month after Actian learned of the alleged infringement. Accordingly, the court dismissed the vicarious and contributory infringement claims.

Breach of contract. Next, the court dismissed the breach of contract claim alleging violation of the EULAs. Because the complaint does not even generally allege what the terms of the other EULAs are or the extent to which they vary from EULA, it is not possible to identify which specific contractual obligations Itron is accused of breaching. Actian’s failure to allege any specific instance of any of these practices occurring falls short of the pleading requirements to describe the when and how the alleged breaches occurred.

Negligence. Because the crux of Actian’s claim for negligence is simply that Itron failed to properly comply with the terms of the EULAs, the negligence claim fails as a matter of law.

Leave to amend. The court granted leave for Actian to amend the complaint within 14 days to allege additional facts to support the copyright infringement claims and the breach of contract claims.

The Case is No. 5:25-cv-08914-BLF.

Judge: Freeman, B.

Attorneys: Ryan Ephraim Hatch (Hatch Law PC) for Actian Corp. Jennifer Rappoport (Botkin Chiarello Calaf PLLC) for Itron, Inc.

Companies: Actian Corp.; Itron, Inc.

Cases: Copyright CaliforniaNews GCNNews