Dassault Systemes,SA v. Childress

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DASSAULT SYSTEMES, S.A.,
Plaintiff, 	Case No. 09-cv-10534
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
v.
KEITH CHILDRESS,
Defendant.
____________________________________________________________________/
ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION
As explained on the record during the hearing on November 25, 2025, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that by not later than January 9, 2026, the parties shall file a
submission answering the following question:
At any point during or after the 2024 trial, did counsel for Mr. Childress or
Mr. Childress, himself, (1) move for judgment as a matter of law on
Dassault’s trademark infringement claim on the basis that the evidence
presented at trial was insufficient to support a finding of likelihood of
confusion or (2) otherwise argue that as a matter of law the evidence
presented at trial was insufficient to support a finding of likelihood of
confusion in connection with Dassault’s trademark infringement claim?
If either party answers in the affirmative, that party shall provide a cite (including
docket number and PageID number) for the motion(s) and/or argument(s).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: November 25, 2025
Case 2:09-cv-10534-MFL-MJH ECF No. 767, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/25/25 Page 1 of 2

2
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on November 25, 2025, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Ryan
Case Manager
(313) 234-5126
Case 2:09-cv-10534-MFL-MJH ECF No. 767, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/25/25 Page 2 of 2