Current Status of Vizio Case
We are awaiting the filing of Vizio's reply to our our motion for summary adjudication.
History of Vizio Case
On October 19, 2021, SFC filed a third-party beneficiary contract lawsuit against Vizio in California State Court in Orange County, CA. Our complaint demands no financial compensation 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).
Vizio has still not provided CCS for their televisions to SFC, and so our lawsuit continues. Instead, Vizio attempted to “remove” the case to federal court (arguing that copyright claims preempted our third-party beneficiary contract claim). We succeeded in our motion to remand the case back to state court; the federal judge agreed that our case included an “extra element” not covered by copyright.
After several months of litigation back in state court, Vizio filed for summary judgment in the state court again 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 was the first time Vizio has tried to attack these claims substantively). On 29 December 2023, the judge denied Vizio's motion for summary judgment.
On 1 December 2023, SFC filed a motion for summary adjudication. Vizio has not yet filed its reply to that motion.
The case is currently set for trial to begin on March 25, 2024.
Portions of Interest from the Docket in the Vizio CaseBelow are documents from the docket(s) in this SFC v. Vizio case of interest, provided in (roughly) chronological order:
- SFC's Original Complaint (2021-10-19)
Removal (to federal court) and Remand (to state court)
Vizio's Motion for Summary Judgment
SFC's Motion for Summary Adjudication