SAS Institute, Inc. v. World Programming Limited, 952 F.3d 513

Background

WPL (U.K. company) reverse-engineered SAS’s (U.S.) statistical-software after breaching a SAS license; SAS sued in multiple fora.
A U.S. jury (E.D.N.C.) found WPL liable for breach, fraudulent inducement, and UDTPA violations and awarded $26.4M compensatory damages trebled to $79.1M total.
SAS pursued collection in the U.K. and in U.S. federal courts (Central District of California); a California assignment order had assigned certain customer payments to SAS.
A U.K. court declined to enforce the U.S. judgment, issued a PTIA clawback order authorizing recovery of two-thirds of any amounts SAS collected, and entered an anti-suit injunction that impeded SAS’s U.S. collection efforts.
The U.S. district court (E.D.N.C.) issued two All Writs Act injunctions: (1) an anti-clawback injunction protecting sums collected in the U.S. from U.K. clawback; and (2) a U.S. expansion injunction barring WPL from licensing WPS to any new customer for use within the United States until the judgment is satisfied.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding the injunctions were within the court’s AWA authority, respectful of comity, procedurally sound, and properly tailored to protect the U.S. judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (SAS)	Defendant's Argument (WPL)	Held
Validity of anti-clawback injunction under the All Writs Act	Needed to prevent U.K. PTIA clawbacks from nullifying U.S. collections and to protect the outstanding U.S. judgment	Exceeded AWA authority, violated international comity, and issued without proper procedure	Affirmed: AWA authorized the injunction; comity not violated; procedural protections met
Validity of U.S. expansion injunction (bar on licensing to new U.S. customers) under the AWA	Narrowly tailored coercive measure necessary to create incentives for WPL to satisfy the judgment after WPL undermined ordinary collection tools	Not authorized by AWA/Rule 69/NC law; harms competition; fails equitable (eBay) factors	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; injunction tailored to U.S. conduct and satisfied equitable considerations
Effect of international comity on injunctive relief	Comity does not require U.S. courts to acquiesce where foreign proceedings frustrate U.S. public policy and enforcement of U.S. judgments	Comity and Laker Airways require deference to U.K. proceedings (PTIA/clawback)	Held for SAS: comity outweighed by U.K. actions that sought to frustrate U.S. enforcement; injunction limited to U.S.-collected sums to respect comity
Procedural adequacy (notice/hearing; Rule 69/N.C. authority)	Emergency circumstances and U.K. injunction constrained SAS; district court afforded reasonable opportunity and relied on AWA/NC law when Rule 69 procedures were frustrated	Insufficient notice; relief must follow state execution procedures; North Carolina law doesn’t authorize this relief	Held: procedural requirements satisfied under the circumstances; N.C. law (and AWA) authorize injunctive relief where judgment effectiveness is threatened

Key Cases Cited

SAS Inst., Inc. v. World Programming Ltd., 874 F.3d 370 (4th Cir. 2017) (prior appellate decision addressing preclusion and earlier injunction request)
Laker Airways Ltd. v. Sabena, Belgian World Airlines, 731 F.2d 909 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (discusses when foreign relief may not be allowed to frustrate U.S. enforcement)
In re March, 988 F.2d 498 (4th Cir. 1993) (AWA authority to issue writs to protect judgments)
Pa. Bureau of Correction v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 474 U.S. 34 (1985) (AWA as residual authority when no statute addresses issue)
Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999) (limits on equitable relief but recognition of relief to protect money judgments)
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (four-factor equitable test for injunctive relief)
Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 349 (1996) (necessity of enforcement power for courts)
Hoxworth v. Blinder, Robinson & Co., 903 F.2d 186 (3d Cir. 1990) (unsatisfiability of a money judgment can be irreparable harm)
Paramedics Electromedicina Comercial, Ltda v. GE Med. Sys. Info. Techs., Inc., 369 F.3d 645 (2d Cir. 2004) (comity not required where foreign action frustrates U.S. judgment enforcement)
Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d 812 (4th Cir. 2004) (requirements for notice and opportunity before injunctive relief)