<p>We are awaiting the state judge's ruling on Vizio's motion for <ahref="/copyleft-compliance/glossary.html#summary-judgment">summary judgment</a>.</p>
<p>On October 19, 2021, SFC filed a third-party beneficiary contract <ahref="https://sfconservancy.org/docs/software-freedom-conservancy-v-vizio-complaint-2021-10-19.pdf">lawsuit</a> against Vizio in California State Court in Orange County, CA. Our <ahref="/copyleft-compliance/glossary.html#complaint">complaint</a> demands <em>no financial compensation</em> but instead asks for what truly matters with regard to software rights and freedom: the "specific performance" (fulfilling a contract requirement in exactly the way the contract specifies) of production of complete, corresponding source code (CCS) — as defined in the various GPL Agreements (such as GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1).</p>
<p>Vizio has still not provided CCS for their televisions to SFC, and so our lawsuit continues. Instead, Vizio <ahref="/blog/2021/dec/28/vizio-update-1/">attempted to “remove”</a> the case to federal court (arguing that copyright claims <em>preempted</em> our third-party beneficiary contract claim). We <ahref="/news/2022/may/16/vizio-remand-win/">succeeded in our motion to remand the case back to state court</a>; the federal judge <ahref="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.837808/gov.uscourts.cacd.837808.30.0.pdf">agreed that our case included an “extra element”</a> not covered by copyright.</p>
<p>After several months of litigation back in state court, Vizio <ahref="https://sfconservancy.org/docs/2023-4-28_VIZIOs_Motion_for_Summary_Judgment_with_Reservation.pdf">filed for</a><ahref="/copyleft-compliance/glossary.html#summary-judgment">summary judgment</a> in the state court <em>again</em> arguing copyright preemption. The state court is not bound by the federal court's ruling against preemption, so Vizio was able to essentially re-argue its motion to dismiss. Vizio also argued that the GPL Agreements have no third-party beneficiaries (which is the first time Vizio has tried to attack these claims substantively). Currently, we are awaiting the judge's ruling on Vizio's motion for summary judgment.</p>
<li>Removal (to federal court) and Remand (to state court)</li>
<ul>
<li><ahref="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.837808/gov.uscourts.cacd.837808.1.0.pdf">Vizio's Motion to Remove (to federal court)</li>
<li><ahref="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.837808/gov.uscourts.cacd.837808.14.0_1.pdf">SFC's Motion to Remand (to state court)</li>
<li><ahref="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.837808/gov.uscourts.cacd.837808.24.0_1.pdf">Vizio's Opposition of SFC's Motion to Remand (to state court)</li>
<li><ahref="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.837808/gov.uscourts.cacd.837808.32.0.pdf">Transcript of the hearing of the motion to remand</a></li>
<li><ahref="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.837808/gov.uscourts.cacd.837808.30.0.pdf"><strong>Decision by the federal court to remand the case to state court</strong></li>
<li><ahref="https://sfconservancy.org/docs/SFC_response_to_summary_judgement.pdf">SFC's response to Vizio's Motion for Summary Judgment</li>
<li><ahref="https://sfconservancy.org/docs/Vizio_summary_judgement_reply_brief.pdf">Vizio's reply to SFC's response to Vizio's Motion for Summary Judgment</a></li>