The Legal Divide: Copyright vs. Patent Infringement

Intellectual property (IP) law protects new ideas and creations. Two key types are copyright and patent law, which protect different things. Copyright protects creative works like books, music, and art. It’s violated when someone copies, uses, or shares a work without permission, such as illegally downloading a movie or using a song’s melody without credit. In contrast, patent law protects new inventions and technological processes. A patent is violated if someone makes, uses, or sells a patented invention without the owner’s consent, like producing a phone with a unique, patented camera lens without a license.

Essentially, copyright encourages creativity by protecting the expression of ideas, while patents promote innovation by protecting how functional inventions work. Copyright protection generally lasts for the author’s lifetime plus 70 years, offering long-term protection for artistic and literary works. Patents, however, typically last for 20 years from their filing date, encouraging a faster cycle of new inventions. Both are crucial for fostering new developments and safeguarding the rights of creators and inventors.

This article outlines key distinctions between copyright and patent violations, supported by landmark case law from India and abroad.

1. Conceptual Foundations:

• Copyright protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves. Case: G. Anand v. Delux Films, AIR 1978 SC 1613 ➤ The Supreme Court held that while ideas are free, their specific expression is protected.
• Patent law secures technical inventions and processes. Case: Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries, AIR 1979 SC 1442 ➤ Patentable inventions must be novel, non-obvious, and industrially applicable.

2. Subject Matter of Protection:

• Copyright covers literary, musical, artistic, and dramatic works. Case: Indian Performing Rights Society v. Aditya Pandey (2011) ➤ Unauthorized public performance of music was deemed infringement.
• Patent protects novel products, methods, and industrial processes. Case: Novartis AG v. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 1 ➤ Patent denied for a modified drug due to lack of enhanced efficacy.

3. Nature of Infringement:

• Copyright infringement involves unauthorized copying or reproduction. Case: Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 ➤ Copying legal headnotes constituted infringement.
• Patent infringement occurs when a patented invention is used or sold without consent. Case: Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., (2009) ➤ Cipla was accused of infringing a cancer drug patent.

4. Duration of Protection:

• Copyright lasts for the author’s life plus 60 years. Case: University of London Press Ltd. v. University Tutorial Press Ltd. (1916) ➤ Even exam papers were held to be copyrightable.
• Patent protection lasts 20 years from the filing date. Case: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals (2015) ➤ Patent rights for a diabetes drug were enforced.

5. Functional vs. Creative Works:

• Copyright excludes functional elements. Case: Midas Hygiene Industries v. Sudhir Bhatia (2004) The court denied copyright for a product’s functional packaging. This case established that copyright protects creative expression, not the useful, everyday features of a design.
• Patent protects functional innovations. Case: TVS Motor Company v. Bajaj Auto Ltd. (2009) ➤ This case highlighted that for a patent to be infringed, the technology must be an obvious or identical copy, not just a similar idea. It established that a competing company can develop its own version of a technology, as long as it’s a genuine innovation and not a direct copy.

6. Exceptions and Defences

• Copyright allows fair use for education, criticism, etc. Case: Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Hamar Television Network (2012) ➤ Music clips used in news reporting were permitted.
• Patent has limited exceptions like experimental use. Case: Bayer Corporation v. Union of India (2014) ➤ Compulsory license granted for public interest. The Bayer case demonstrated that a patent can be overridden for public benefit, as a compulsory license was granted for an expensive cancer drug to ensure wider access and prioritize public health.

7. Idea vs. Expression Dichotomy:

• Copyright protects expression, not mere ideas. Case: Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Sundial Communications Pvt. Ltd. (2003) ➤ Similar TV show concept was not infringement.
• Patent infringement can occur even with different implementation. Case: Enercon India Ltd. v. Aloys Wobben (2014) ➤ Broad interpretation of patent claims upheld. The court upheld a broad interpretation of patent claims, ruling that infringement can occur even if the invention is implemented differently.

8. Derivative Works vs. Improvements

• Copyright protects adaptations and translations. Case: Syndicate of the Press of the University of Cambridge v. B.D. Bhandari (2007) ➤ Unauthorized textbook translation was infringement.
• Patent allows protection for novel improvements. Case: Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Intex Technologies (2016) ➤ Standard Essential Patents and FRAND obligations discussed.

9. Moral Rights vs. Inventor Rights:

• Copyright includes moral rights like attribution. Case: Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India (2005) ➤ Destruction of mural violated artist’s moral rights.
• Patent focuses on economic rights of inventors. Case: Raj Prakash v. Mangat Ram Chowdhury, AIR 1978 Delhi 1 ➤ Inventor’s rights upheld despite commercial use by others. This principle ensures that inventors can benefit financially from their innovations, which is the core purpose of the patent system.

10. Registration Requirements:

• Copyright arises automatically; registration is optional. Case: Sarla A. Saraogi v. Suresh Jindal (2001) ➤ Copyright exists even without registration.
• Patent requires formal application and grant. Case: Aloys Wobben v. Yogesh Mehra (2014) ➤ Only granted patents are enforceable.

 Additional Copyright Violations:

• Unauthorized streaming of broadcast content Case: Aereo, Inc. v. ABC, Inc. ➤ Streaming without licenses was held infringing.
• Plagiarism and unauthorized distribution of text Case: Penguin Books Ltd. v. India Book Distributors ➤ Reproduction of copyrighted books without permission.
• Unauthorized use of music compositions Case: Lana Del Rey v. Radiohead ➤ Alleged copying of chord progression.
• Infringement of visual art or photography Case: Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith ➤ Use of Prince photograph without license.
• Copying software code as literary work Case: Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. ➤ Fair use upheld despite code copying.
• Copying “total concept and feel” of a work Case: Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co. ➤ Similar greeting card designs found infringing.
• Unauthorized derivative films or rentals Case: Warner Bros. v. Mr. Santosh V.G. ➤ Public rental of films without permission.
• Parody as fair use defense Case: Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. ➤ Parody deemed transformative and non-infringing.
• Secondary liability for platforms Case: A&M Records v. Napster, Inc. ➤ File-sharing service held contributorily liable.

 Additional Patent Violations:

• Unauthorized use of patented smartphone features Case: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. ➤ Extensive litigation over design and utility patents.
• Literal infringement of patent claims Case: Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. ➤ The Supreme Court’s decision essentially took the power to define the patent away from a jury and gave it to the judge, standardizing the process.
• Doctrine of equivalents Case: Graver Tank v. Linde Air Products ➤ The doctrine of equivalents means a patent is infringed even if an invention doesn’t precisely match the patent’s description, as long as the new version performs the same function, in the same way, to achieve the same result.
• Process patent infringement Case: FMC Corp. v. Natco Pharma Ltd. ➤ Unauthorized chemical process use debated.
• Contributory infringement clarified Case: Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. ➤ Non-infringing parts not liable.
• Induced infringement liability Case: Commil USA v. Cisco Systems ➤ Belief in invalidity not a defense.
• Importation of infringing generics Case: Jazz Pharmaceuticals v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals ➤ The court addressed a challenge against bringing generic versions of a drug into the country that allegedly violated existing patents.
• Invalidity defense via prior art Case: KSR International v. Teleflex Inc. ➤ Obviousness standard clarified. The obviousness standard means a test used in patent law to decide whether an invention is too similar to existing knowledge or ideas (called prior art) and therefore not eligible for a patent.
• Design patent infringement and damages Case: Samsung v. Apple (2016) ➤ Ornamental design protection upheld. The court confirmed that design patents protect the ornamental (visual) appearance of a product, not its functional part

 Conclusion:

Intellectual property rights, especially copyrights and patents, are very important for creating new ideas and inventions. Both of these aims to protect original works, but they work in different ways. Copyright protects the unique way an idea is expressed, like in a book, song, or painting. It focuses on the style or form. Patents, on the other hand, protect new inventions that are useful, such as a new machine or a new process. They focus on how something works and its practical use. It’s really important for creators, inventors, and legal professionals to understand these differences. This includes knowing what each covers, how long they last, what happens if someone copies them, and how to officially register them. Knowing these different rules helps make sure the right legal support is available for all kinds of human creations. This helps art, science, and technology all grow and improve.