Page 18 - DT 13-3.qxd

16-18-Ananya article-Q8_6-7-8-Ivoclar.qxd 10/21/2023 3:40 PM Page 3

18 copyright infringement DENTAL TECHNOLOGY, JULY-SEPTEMBER 2023

Continued vigilance, awareness, and collaboration among stakeholders, including
software developers, healthcare institutions, and the judiciary, are essential to curbing
this menace.

The Patents Act, 1970: Where certain technologies, especially those versions of Sarine’s ‘Advisor®’ rough planning software. The court ruled
incorporating and leveraging computer technology, Artificial Intelligence decisively that such unauthorized software usage is illegal. The defen-
and Machine Learning are patented under the Indian Patents Act, 1970, dants, were ordered to immediately remove the pirated software from
solutions such as Suits for Patent Infringement are available to compa- their computers.
nies looking to protect their intellectual property rights. These judicial decisions, along with many others, collectively reflect
the judiciary’s commitment to combatting software piracy. It is evident
The Indian Penal Code, 1860: Any person engaged in pirating or that the Indian legal system takes a firm stance against all forms of pira-
using pirated software would be liable under the Indian Penal Code inter cy, recognizing the far-reaching consequences it can have on innovation
alia for theft (Section 378) and dishonest misappropriation of property, and user safety.
which are offences punishable with fine and imprisonment.
In effect individuals or organisations dealing in or using pirated software CONCLUSION
in India can be penalised and prosecuted not only under the Copyright In the realm of the medical device software industry in India, the battle
Act but also under several other Acts including The Trade Marks Act, against piracy is a pressing challenge. As we have explored, the imple-
1999, The Patents Act, 1970 and the The Information Technology Act, mentation of robust copyright laws, along with the establishment of
2000. stringent judicial precedents, stands as a formidable defense against the
unlawful duplication and distribution of vital software.
JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS The Indian Copyright Act, highlights the gravity of infringing intellectu-
The role of judicial precedents in combatting medical device software al property rights, offering a comprehensive legal framework to protect
piracy cannot be overstated. Indian courts have consistently shown a the creators and innovators who invest time, resources, and expertise in
proactive stance in addressing this issue, setting crucial legal precedents developing medical device software.
that serve as deterrents to potential infringers. Several noteworthy cases However, the battle against medical device software piracy is far from
have emerged, each with its own unique circumstances and outcomes. won. Continued vigilance, awareness, and collaboration among stake-
holders, including software developers, healthcare institutions, and the
1. Time Incorporated v. Lokesh Srivastava: In this landmark judiciary, are essential to curbing this menace. The ever-evolving digital
case, the court set a significant precedent by emphasizing the importance landscape demands adaptability and innovative strategies to counter
of punitive damages in cases of infringement of trademark, copyrights, emerging threats.
and patents. The court’s stance was clear: punitive damages should deter In conclusion, safeguarding the integrity of medical device software in
and discourage lawbreakers who engage in violations for monetary gain. India requires a multi-faceted approach. By harnessing the strength of
This ruling has paved the way for punitive damages in software piracy Information Technology and Intellectual Property laws, fortifying legal
cases, with Indian Courts, recognizing the rights of innovating entities precedents, and fostering a culture of respect for intellectual property
and awarding punitive damages ranging from Rs 5 lakhs for individual rights, one can ensure that innovative healthcare technologies continue
users to Rs 20 lakhs for the sale of counterfeit products by unauthorized to flourish, ultimately benefiting patients and advancing the nation's
vendors. healthcare infrastructure.

2. Super Cassettes Industries vs. Yahoo Inc.: In this case, the For a complete list of references email: info@dental-practice.biz
plaintiff alleged that the defendant infringed upon their copyrighted
material through their online portal. The court, in response, issued an
injunction to prohibit the reproduction and transmission of the plaintiff’s
copyrighted material via the defendant’s portal. This case underscores
the judiciary’s commitment to protecting intellectual property rights in
the digital domain. About the authors

Ms. Raj Latha Kotni leads Lexport's Intellectual Property
3. Microsoft Corporation vs. Mr. Kiran and Anr. Recognizing the
division, with extensive experience in IPR Laws. She spe-
growing menace of software piracy in the country, the court in this case
cializes in patent matters, offering expertise invalidity,
highlighted the need for appropriate measures and stringent Acts to pre- infringement, patentability, and technology transfer
vent copyright material infringement. Moreover, the court also granted agreements, particularly in the life sciences, pharmaceu-
injunctions against service providers, restraining them from using, stor- ticals, biotechnology, and biochemistry fields. Ms. Raj
Latha is also well-versed in trademark and copyright
ing, receiving, and selling copyrighted material through their websites.
prosecution, litigation and enforcement, serving both
These actions reflect the judiciary’s proactive stance against software
domestic and international clients. Her educational back-
piracy. ground comprises a Law degree from CCS University, a
Science degree from Andhra University, and a Master's
4. Microsoft Corporation v Yogesh Popat and Dyptronics Pvt degree in Food Science and Biochemistry from
Padmavathi University. She is a qualified Patent Agent
Ltd (2005). The Hon’ble Delhi High Court awarded damages of approx-
and holds membership in the Bar Council of Delhi.
imately INR 2 million to Microsoft Corporation. The Court also passed
an order against the Defendants to deliver all pirated copies of Ms. Ananya Singh, is currently a junior Associate at
Microsoft’s software, including the equipment used to make infringing Lexport under the Intellectual Property Rights team. She
copies of the software, as well as other infringing materials in the is a law graduate from NMIMS, School of Law, and has
completed her BA.,LLB(Hons) degree in 2023. Her passion
Defendants’ possession.
lies at the intersection of Intellectual Property Rights and
its dynamic intersection with various industries.
5. Sarine Technologies Ltd vs Diyora And Bhanderi
Corporation: Sarine Technologies, an Israeli diamond technology
company, recently won a legal case in India against five Surat-based dia-
mond businesses. These companies were found guilty of using pirated