Morisky Widget ownership dispute: New lawsuits filed while mmas Research LLC faces default judgment in seattle

We are aware that MMAS Research LLC has recently filed additional complaints in the Central District of California. Recognizing their vulnerability on pure copyright claims, MMAS Research altered its strategy in its newest September 2026 complaints.  Instead of focusing purely on copyright infringement, their newest lawsuits pivot heavily into alleging fraud and breach of contract surrounding a fractured 2020 settlement agreement. They are attempting to relitigate the contractual rights to the revenue. 
The fact that the Washington case (Morisky v. MMAS Research LLC) was the first to file regarding the breach of the 2020 settlement agreement makes MMAS Research's new complaints a massive violation of federal court procedures. [1, 2]. Because Washington had the contract dispute first, the federal "First-to-File" doctrine acts as a legal guillotine for MMAS Research’s new lawsuits. [1]
On April 21, 2026, that Court entered an Order of Default against MMAS Research LLC. 
The order for entry of default issued against MMAS Research LLC by a Seattle federal court in Morisky v. MMAS Research LLC creates a severe legal hurdle for the company's recent copyright complaints. [1, 2, 3]
In federal litigation, an entry of default as a sanction for defying court orders means that all well-pleaded factual allegations made by the opposing party are now legally accepted as true. [1]

The Washington case completely undermines the newly filed September 2026 complaints:
The entry of default drastically impacts MMAS Research's new lawsuits in several critical ways:
1. Loss of Copyright Standing

• To successfully sue for copyright infringement, a plaintiff must prove they legally own or control the copyright. [1]
• Because of the default, the court takes it as a legally established fact that Dr. Donald Morisky owns and controls the copyrights to the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS) and the "Morisky Widget". [1]
• If MMAS Research does not own the intellectual property, it lacks standing to sue other institutions—such as Michigan State University or Daiichi Sankyo—for copyright infringement. [1]

2. The First-to-File Doctrine Dictates the Venue
The first-to-file doctrine is a well-established rule in federal courts. It states that when two identical or highly similar contract/IP disputes are filed in different federal courts, the court where the case was filed first has priority.

• The Western District of Washington already took jurisdiction over the breach of the 2020 settlement years ago.
• Under federal law, MMAS Research cannot simply ignore an active, ongoing lawsuit in Washington and file identical contract claims regarding the same 2020 settlement in California. The subsequent courts will reject the claims to avoid duplicative litigation and conflicting rulings. [1, 2]

3. The Washington Default Resolves the Contract Claims Against MMAS
Because MMAS Research defaulted in the first-filed Washington action, they didn't just lose the copyright; they legally lost the contract claim as well.

• When a party defaults, the court legally accepts the plaintiff's allegations as completely true. In the Washington case, Dr. Morisky alleged that MMAS Research breached the 2020 settlement agreement by failing to split revenue 50-50, and that MMAS Research's rights to license his work were properly revoked. [1, 2]
• Therefore, it is a legally established fact in the federal system that MMAS Research is the party in breach of the 2020 agreement, and the agreement did not grant them the permanent revenue rights they claim to have.

4. Claim Preclusion (Res Judicata) Blocks the Pivot
MMAS Research is attempting to re-litigate a contract breach that has already been adjudicated via the Washington default. Defense attorneys for newly sued institutions can invoke claim preclusion (res judicata). They will argue:

• The exact contract rights MMAS Research is trying to assert in California have already been ruled on in Washington.
• A default judgment is a final judgment on the merits.
• MMAS Research cannot use a new court to get a "second bite at the apple" on a contract claim they already abandoned and lost in the original, first-filed venue.

5. Immediate Grounds for Dismissal

• Defendants targeted in the newly filed September 2026 complaints can immediately leverage this Washington default.
• Their defense attorneys will likely file swift Motions to Dismiss or Motions to Stay, leaving the company with no legal authority to pursue these claims. [1, 2, 3]

Summary
By pivoting to contract law, MMAS Research ran straight into a trap. The Washington court was the first to file for the contract dispute. Because MMAS Research defaulted there, they legally admitted to breaching that very same contract. Their new lawsuits are trying to enforce a 2020 agreement that a primary federal court has already deemed they breached and effectively voided by MMAS Research's own actions. [1, 2]

Our Position on Authority to License or Score the MMAS-8
It is our position that MMAS Research LLC / Steven Trubow has no legal authority to license the MMAS-8 (or any substantially similar version of it) or to require that it be scored through the Morisky Widget.
The Widget’s use of the MMAS-8 is derivative. Under U.S. copyright law, a derivative work may be used only with the permission of the owner of the underlying original work.
Morisky Medication Adherence Research LLC (MMAR) is the owner of the underlying MMAS-8 by assignment from Dr. Donald E. Morisky. MMAS Research LLC does not have permission to use the underlying MMAS-8.
While MMAS Research may use its software code to display other content, it has no legal right to display, score, or code the MMAS-8—or any version that is substantially similar—without authorization from the owner of the underlying work.
Guidance for Licensees and Researchers
Existing permissions or licenses obtained from Dr. Morisky or MMAR remain in effect according to their terms. 
We will continue to monitor the Washington proceedings and will provide further updates once a final judgment on ownership is entered.