A federal judge ended a competition dispute in the diagnostics space, dismissing counterclaims and claims between AirPro Diagnostics and Opus IVS with prejudice. The ruling, issued Sept. 29 by U.S. District Judge Linda Parker in Michigan, granted summary judgment to both sides in the years-long legal battle.
The case centered on agreements, software licensing and allegations of unfair competition tied to AutoEnginuity and the Giotto diagnostic/recalibration software integrated into AirPro’s scan tool.
AirPro alleged breach of contract, unfair competition and tortious interference; Opus IVS countered with its own contract and unfair competition claims. Parker granted summary judgment in favor of Opus IVS for all AirPro claims and did the same for Opus’s counterclaims.
At the center of the dispute was a Mutual Party Agreement (MPA) dating to 2017, under which AirPro and Drew Technologies — now a subsidiary of Opus IVS — exchanged proprietary software, technical data and strategies under confidentiality obligations. AirPro claimed that Opus IVS and AutoEnginuity misused that data to develop competing Remote Assistance Programming (RAP) products.
Parker found that no genuine issues of material fact existed to sustain AirPro’s breach-of-contract, tortious interference or unfair competition claims. On the MPA dispute, the court declined to enforce a requirement that AirPro had to reduce oral disclosures into writing to protect confidentiality, citing ambiguity in the contract. But even under the broader interpretation, AirPro failed to present sufficient evidence of misuse or damages.
Regarding the Giotto end-user license agreement (EULA), AirPro challenged amendments and termination of its license, alleging interference in its business. The court held Opus IVS was permitted, under EULA terms, to modify or terminate licenses; those changes were not per se wrongful. The court also found that the unfair competition claim, which derived from the same conduct, could not stand separately.
On the counterclaims, the court found Opus IVS's breach-of-contract and unfair competition arguments against AirPro lacked factual support, granting summary judgment to AirPro on those claims.
Thus, the case is fully closed, with each side winning on its own claims but no rulings in either party’s favor on the core disputes.
In a news release, Opus IVS called the decision a legal victory.
In a separate post on LinkedIn, Opus IVS CEO Brian Herron — also named as a defendant in AirPro’s lawsuit — said “we are pleased with the outcome.”
“With every OEM scan we perform at Opus IVS, you will find a copy of the OEM report from the OEM diagnostic software in your customer portal,” Herron wrote. “You should hold your diagnostic partner to the same level of transparency and accountability.”
Herron said a separate Florida case is still pending, which Opus IVS hopes will also be decided upon soon.
AirPro Diagnostics released a statement from its attorney, Adam Brody at Varnum Law.
“AirPro Diagnostics is pleased that the Michigan Court has thrown out all of Opus IVS’s unsupported claims with prejudice, completely vindicating our position that those claims had absolutely no merit,” Brody said in the emailed statement. “We look forward to holding Opus IVS accountable for its misconduct in our ongoing case in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
“Unlike Opus IVS's recycled and already dismissed claims, our claims in Florida include substantial and valid claims against Opus IVS for breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, fraud and injunctive relief,” Brody said.
