Memorandum in support of application for ex parte order of seizure

[Name]

[Address]

[Phone Number]

Attorney for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE ______________ DISTRICT OF _________________

Civil Action, File Number ___________

__________________________________________

)

[Name], ) MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff, ) IN SUPPORT OF

) APPLICATION

v. ) FOR EX PARTE

) SEIZURE

[Name], )

Defendant. )

__________________________________________)

This memorandum is submitted in support of the attached Application for Ex Parte Order of Seizure and Impoundment in this copyright infringement action.

1. STATEMENT OF FACTS

   1. Facts Regarding Infringement

      Plaintiff is a well known manufacturer of software products for businesses. Known by its registered trademark Brand X, plaintiff's business accounting software has sold more than 20,000 copies for revenues of over $20 million.

      Defendants are resellers of plaintiff’s software. They have purchased copies of plaintiff’s software, ostensibly for resale to their customers. However, instead of purchasing a new copy of plaintiff's software for each of their customers, defendants have instead simply made copies of plaintiff’s software electronically on their computers and sold the copies (with the most minor of modifications) to their customers as “Brand Y.”

      The evidence of the copying is overwhelming and the defendants have been caught red handed.

      First, defendants have admitted that their so called “Brand Y” software is copied directly from Brand X.

      Second, defendants sell the “Brand Y” program with no user manuals, no original diskettes, no packaging and no source code all indicia of pirated software.

      Third, defendants’ so called “Brand Y” program has the unique serial numbers imprinted on Brand X software. These serial numbers are registered to end users of Brand X that bought their software through defendants!

      Fourth, defendants' so called “Brand Y” program has numerous references to Brand X itself, including the Brand X name and logo evidently defendants were unable to purge them all.

      Finally, “Brand Y” is virtually identical in all respects to Brand X.

   2. Facts Regarding the Need for Seizure and Impoundment

      In addition to these shameless acts of blatant copying in violation of numerous federal and state statutes, defendants are guilty of dishonest behavior that raises the fear that notice of this action will result in wholesale destruction of evidence.

      First, defendants have operated under several different entities, abandoning business names, addresses and telephone numbers with no forwarding address whenever it suits them.

      Second, in order to obtain Brand X user manuals to sell with their infringing “Brand Y” software, defendants pulled off a scheme whereby they pretended to sign up for a...