The case of Dassault Systèmes & OINR vs Advanced Engineering Solutions & Anr. represents a pivotal legal battle in the realm of intellectual property rights, specifically addressing the unauthorised use of proprietary engineering software.
The plaintiffs, Dassault Systèmes (a French corporation), Dassault Systèmes SolidWorks Corporation (a U.S.-based entity), and Dassault Systèmes India Private Limited (their Indian subsidiary), are global leaders in developing advanced computer-aided design (CAD), computer-aided manufacturing (CAM), and computer-aided engineering (CAE) software. Their flagship products, including SOLIDWORKS, CATIA, and SIMULIA, are widely used across industries such as aviation, defence, and automotive for 3D modelling, simulation, and product design. The defendants, Advanced Engineering Solutions (an engineering design firm) and its director were accused of using pirated versions of these software programs without valid licenses, thereby infringing the plaintiffs’ copyrights.
The plaintiffs’ case was built on a robust licensing system where users acquire rights to software through End-User License Agreements (EULAs) or Customer License and Online Services Agreements (CLOSAs). To combat piracy, Dassault implemented a “phone home” technology that detects unauthorised use by tracking license compliance through infringement reports. In April 2018, the plaintiffs received market intelligence suggesting the defendants were using pirated SOLIDWORKS software. Subsequent verification through their infringement database confirmed unauthorised use on multiple computer systems at the defendants’ Chennai office. The plaintiffs issued legal notices demanding cessation of infringement and payment of license fees, but the defendants’ responses were evasive. While the defendants initially claimed to possess a licensed copy, they failed to substantiate this with legitimate documentation or engage in meaningful resolution efforts.
The plaintiffs escalated their investigation in July 2020, uncovering further unauthorised use of SIMULIA and CATIA software. An independent investigator’s affidavit revealed that employees of the defendant firm admitted to using CATIA V5 for 3D modelling, while infringement reports detailed extensive unauthorised deployments of SOLIDWORKS and SIMULIA. Despite repeated legal notices and court summons, the defendants largely abstained from proceedings. The defendant’s director appeared only once, on September 18, 2020, offering a partial undertaking to license SOLIDWORKS but denying the need for CATIA or SIMULIA—claims contradicted by the plaintiffs’ evidence. The court subsequently proceeded ex-parte due to the defendants’ non-participation.
In its analysis, the court emphasised the plaintiffs’ unchallenged evidence, including copyright registration certificates, infringement reports, and correspondence with the defendants. Under Rule 3 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, the defendant’s failure to file a written statement or deny the plaintiffs’ documents rendered the plaint’s averments deemed admitted. The court found clear proof of copyright infringement, noting the defendants’ deliberate and prolonged unauthorised use of the software, which deprived the plaintiffs of legitimate revenue and undermined their intellectual property rights.
The court awarded a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from reproducing, installing, or using pirated versions of the plaintiffs’ software, alongside an order for the delivery of all infringing materials. Compensatory damages of INR 2.78 crores were granted, calculated based on the license fees the plaintiffs would have earned had the defendants procured genuine software. The damages accounted for the defendants’ unauthorised deployments across multiple systems, the duration of the infringement, and their wilful neglect. Additionally, the plaintiffs were awarded INR 3.21 lakhs in litigation costs.
This judgment reaffirms the judiciary’s stringent stance against software piracy, particularly in cases involving sophisticated industrial tools. It highlights the efficacy of technological measures like “phone home” systems in detecting infringement and the importance of robust documentation in proving unauthorised use. For the technology and engineering sectors, the case serves as a cautionary tale for firms using unlicensed software, emphasising the legal and financial risks of non-compliance.
