Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. The main thrust of the plaintiff's argument is that by the process of `reverse engineering', the defendant has copied the three dimensional product `occlusion device' by converting them into a two dimensional product which are same or similar to the two dimensional drawings of the plaintiff and thereafter by a process of `reverse engineering' converted their two dimensional drawings into three dimensional product. In this connection, support is sought from para No. 16.26 at page 228 of the P. Narayanan's book -"Law of Copyright and Industrial Designs", Third Edition. In the said paragraph, "reverse engineering" is referred to or mean stripping down and dismantling of a machine, making sketches of the relevant parts and recording dimensions making working drawing from such sketches, plus the dimensions, and then making the machine from such working drawings. A machine has been defined in Law Lexicon, the Encyclopedia law dictionary by P. Ramanatha Iyer at page 1156 to include every mechanical device or combination of mechanical powers and devices to perform some function and produce a certain effect or result. In the Webster's dictionary, the term has been defined as the construction more or less complex consisting of a combination of moving parts or simple mechanical elements such as wheels, levers etc. with their support and connecting framework calculating to constitute a prime mover or to receive force and motion from a prime mover or from another machine and transmit modify and apply them to the production of some desired mechanical effect or work. The device referred to in the suit cannot be said to be machine and, therefore, the theory of reverse engineering has no application. Besides, there is no allegation that the defendant while creating its product has stripped the product of the plaintiff and produced them thereafter. Such a question can only be examined and answered after a full trial when the parties have led their respective evidence.