Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This Motion seeks an interlocutory injunction in a copyright infringement and breach of confidence action. The copyright and confidence are claimed in respect of software programme architecture or source code in the Plaintiffs' proprietary software.

2 The Plaintiffs claim to have created an indigenous software named "INTRACT" in or around the year 2001. This particular software comprises of twenty five different feature-based software modules dealing with various aspects of database management that could be deployed at a client's end for the purpose of implementing what is known as Enterprise Resource Planning ("ERP"). The Plaintiffs claim copyright in the source code or programme architecture of each of these modules. In or around 2006, the Plaintiffs also finalized proprietary software algorithms for running of all technical operations of the software by the names of "CRATOR" and "SEEQUER". The Plaintiffs claim to be the authors and copyright owners in the source codes of "CRATOR" and "SEEQUER". The Pg 1 of 11 nms.1290.2014.doc Plaintiffs have also registered these latter source codes with the Copyright Office in India. The Copyright Office has issued registration certificates in this behalf (Reg.Nos.SW-3581/2007 and SW-3582/2007) in favour of the Plaintiffs. It is the Plaintiffs' case that based on these, the Plaintiffs make various customized softwares for their clients. Such softwares include the software algorithms of 'CRATOR' and 'SEEQUER' together with combinations of various modules out of the twenty five modules of INTRACT. The technical part consists of the software algorithms of "CRATOR" and "SEEQUER" which run the software or make it operational, whilst the utility part contains the various feature-based modules (i.e. a combination some or all of the twenty five modules of INTRACT). These latter modules are further customized according to the particular needs of the respective clients.

3 It is the Plaintiffs' case that in 2008, the Defendant approached the Plaintiffs for preparation of a web based ERP software for 'automation' of the marketing and operations part of their business of insurance broking. After considering the Plaintiffs' proposal, the Defendant commissioned the Plaintiffs for coding of a customized software for use of the Defendant. The Plaintiffs claim to have, as part of this software development, between November 2008 and November 2013, created a unique software for the Defendant integrating fourteen feature-based modules. It is their case that out of these fourteen modules, three modules were specifically developed by the Plaintiffs for the Defendant, whilst the remaining eleven modules were developed and customized using the Plaintiffs' existing Source Code Library. (The customized unique software thus prepared for the Defendant is hereinafter referred to as the "impugned software".) It is further the Plaintiffs' case that after the Defendant started using the impugned software, on the pretext of doing load testing of the software, the Defendant procured from the Plaintiffs the source code, the technical details, software architecture and other details in respect of certain portions of the impugned software. The Plaintiffs claim to have shared with the Defendant the source code of requested portions in good faith, which included the confidential architecture solely designed and developed by the Plaintiffs and used in the impugned software. It is the grievance of the Plaintiffs that the Defendant is now attempting Pg 2 of 11 nms.1290.2014.doc to disclose, share and deal in the source codes so disclosed in confidence without permission or licence from the Plaintiffs in violation of the Plaintiffs' copyright as well as in breach of confidentiality. So also, though the Plaintiffs have not disclosed or delivered the source code of the proprietary software of "CRATOR" or "SEEQUER" which is deployed within the impugned software to the Defendant, the Plaintiffs apprehend that the Defendant may obtain the source code or architecture of the software by reverse engineering and then misuse the same. The Plaintiffs have, therefore, approached the Court with a case of copyright infringement. The Plaintiffs also claim to be entitled to protection of confidentiality.

5 The case really pertains to the impugned software which is customized for the Defendant. In other words, the only question that really falls for the consideration of the Court is whether the Plaintiffs have made out any case of infringement of copyright and/ or breach of confidentiality in respect of the impugned software including its source code. The contention of the Plaintiffs is that they are authors of the impugned software and own copyright in it. Though the Plaintiffs were commissioned and have customized this software for the Defendant at or for a fee, the Plaintiffs would submit, the literary work (forming part of the source code) was not made in the course of the Plaintiffs' employment under any contract of service. Secondly, it is submitted that what the Plaintiffs created for the Defendant was a customized software, and though the Defendant is entitled to this software, the source code for the software does not belong to the Defendant and very much forms part of the Plaintiffs' property. It is claimed that this source code was parted with by the Plaintiffs to the Defendant in Pg 3 of 11 nms.1290.2014.doc circumstances of confidence and the Defendant cannot breach this confidence.