Animal Intelligence Software, a Washington-based veterinary software company, filed suit against Dr. Sarah Colombini Osborn and her practice, Southwest Veterinary Dermatology, claiming they used the company's practice management software without authorization from 2011 through at least January 2026. The complaint alleges damages of more than $86,000 in lost support revenue and upgrade fees.
The dispute began in 2011 when Dr. Osborn cancelled her support contract after AIS proposed an 87% fee increase. According to the complaint, AIS representative TJ Driver informed Dr. Osborn that cancelling support would terminate her license and require software removal. The complaint states that Driver 'specifically explained that Dr. Osborn had purchased the rights to use the software, not to own it.'
Despite being told the software had to be returned, Dr. Osborn allegedly continued operating the system on five workstations for over a decade. AIS only discovered the ongoing use in August 2025 when Dr. Osborn called for technical support about an error message. The complaint notes that Dr. Osborn told AIS she had 'opted to go with another system,' but continued using the software anyway.
The original 2004 license agreement granted Dr. Osborn a 'limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable license' to use the Animal Intelligence Software. The contract required that 'upon termination or expiration of this contract, Client shall promptly return to AIS all full or partial copies of the Software and related materials.' The software license was tied to ongoing support payments.
Dr. Osborn disputed AIS's interpretation of the contract, arguing she 'never received notification from AIS that cancelling support would terminate her license under the 2004 contract.' In her response to AIS's demand letter, she asserted she had 'every right to use the software' and maintained the original contract allowed continued use without ongoing support payments.
The case highlights tensions in software licensing between vendors and customers over perpetual versus subscription-based models. AIS offered to settle for $100,000 before filing suit, but Dr. Osborn declined. The software company is seeking actual damages, statutory copyright damages up to $150,000 per work, and an injunction requiring immediate cessation of use.
AIS discovered Dr. Osborn's continued use when her IT representative called in January 2026 about license error messages, confirming all five licenses were active. The complaint states that AIS representative Brad Osterman 'informed the AIS executive team that despite Dr. Osborn's claims of switching to another system, her clinic was still actively using the Animal Intelligence software.'
The case will test whether software license termination clauses can override users' expectations of perpetual access after initial payment. Dr. Osborn's position that support payments were optional rather than license-sustaining represents a common dispute in enterprise software contracts.