{"id":26259,"date":"2026-06-17T02:41:32","date_gmt":"2026-06-17T02:41:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=26259"},"modified":"2026-06-17T02:45:44","modified_gmt":"2026-06-17T02:45:44","slug":"supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court on Software Copyright Infringement: Expert Source Code Comparison Limited to Registered Software Version"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 id=\"h-introduction\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">When a company accuses another of stealing its computer software, one of the most critical and technically challenging questions that arises in court is, how does one actually prove that software has been copied? Unlike a physical product where similarities can be seen with the naked eye, software operates through invisible lines of coded instructions. The only meaningful way to compare two software programs and determine whether one has been copied from the other is to examine their underlying source code and object code, the internal programming that makes the software work.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_85 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#Factual_and_Procedural_Background\" >Factual and Procedural Background<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#Advisor%E2%84%A2_Software_and_Copyright_Ownership\" >Advisor\u2122 Software and Copyright Ownership<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#Allegations_Against_the_Defendants\" >Allegations Against the Defendants<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#Trial_Court_and_High_Court_Proceedings\" >Trial Court and High Court Proceedings<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#Submission_of_Source_Code_and_Object_Code\" >Submission of Source Code and Object Code<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#Appointment_of_Technical_Expert\" >Appointment of Technical Expert<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#Challenge_to_the_Experts_Appointment\" >Challenge to the Expert&#8217;s Appointment<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#Scope_of_Software_Comparison\" >Scope of Software Comparison<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#Second_Round_of_Litigation\" >Second Round of Litigation<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#Appeal_Before_the_Supreme_Court\" >Appeal Before the Supreme Court<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#Case_Timeline_at_a_Glance\" >Case Timeline at a Glance<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#The_Dispute\" >The Dispute<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Court\" >Reasoning and Analysis of the Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#Appointment_of_Mr_Zeidman_as_Expert\" >Appointment of Mr Zeidman as Expert<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#Defendants_Acquiescence_to_the_Appointment\" >Defendants&#8217; Acquiescence to the Appointment<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#Data_Security_Concerns_and_Safeguards\" >Data Security Concerns and Safeguards<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-18\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#Limited_Role_of_the_Expert\" >Limited Role of the Expert<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-19\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#Scope_of_Software_Comparison-2\" >Scope of Software Comparison<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-20\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#Decision_on_Costs\" >Decision on Costs<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-21\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#Key_Takeaways\" >Key Takeaways<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-22\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#Final_Decision_of_the_Court\" >Final Decision of the Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-23\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#Issue_1_Appointment_of_Technical_Expert\" >Issue 1: Appointment of Technical Expert<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-24\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#Issue_2_Scope_of_Comparison_Exercise\" >Issue 2: Scope of Comparison Exercise<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-25\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#Costs_Awarded_by_the_Court\" >Costs Awarded by the Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-26\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#Clarification_on_Merits_of_the_Dispute\" >Clarification on Merits of the Dispute<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-27\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#Point_of_Law_Settled\" >Point of Law Settled<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-28\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#1_Principle_of_Acquiescence\" >1. Principle of Acquiescence<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-29\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#2_Scope_of_Expert_Comparison_in_Intellectual_Property_Disputes\" >2. Scope of Expert Comparison in Intellectual Property Disputes<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-30\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-31\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#Key_Legal_Takeaways\" >Key Legal Takeaways<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The case of <strong>Diyora and Bhanderi Corporation and Others versus Sarine Technologies Limited<\/strong>, decided by the Supreme Court of India on 30 July 2018, arose in the context of exactly this challenge. The dispute involved a cutting-edge software used in the diamond and precious stone industries and raised important questions about how courts should manage the process of expert comparison of software in intellectual property litigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court was called upon to decide two focused but practically significant questions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Whether the appointment of an expert to compare the competing software programs was proper.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether the scope of comparison should be limited to only the registered version of the software or could extend to all previous and unregistered versions as well.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Though procedural in nature, the Court&#8217;s resolution of these questions carries important lessons about the integrity of judicial processes in technology-related intellectual property disputes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-factual-and-procedural-background\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_and_Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Factual and Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-advisor-software-and-copyright-ownership\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Advisor%E2%84%A2_Software_and_Copyright_Ownership\"><\/span>Advisor\u2122 Software and Copyright Ownership<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Sarine Technologies Limited, the plaintiff and respondent before the Supreme Court, is a company that had developed and owned a software product called Advisor\u2122. This software uses a three-dimensional representation to help analyse how a raw precious stone can best be cut and polished so as to yield the best quality diamonds and gemstones.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In essence, it is a sophisticated tool designed for the diamond processing industry to maximise the quality and value extracted from rough stones.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The plaintiff claimed that it had a validly subsisting copyright in the Advisor\u2122 software both in Israel and in the United States of America. Specifically, it had obtained copyright registration in the USA for version 6.0 (also referred to as the 6th version) of the Advisor\u2122 software, bearing the registration number TX8-252-522.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The plaintiff also asserted that by virtue of the International Copyright Order, 1999, and India being a member country of the Berne Copyright Union, this copyright protection extended to India in the same manner as if the software had originally been published in India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-allegations-against-the-defendants\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Allegations_Against_the_Defendants\"><\/span>Allegations Against the Defendants<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The defendants, Diyora, Bhanderi Corporation and others, who are the appellants before the Supreme Court, were also engaged in the business of the diamond industry. The plaintiff alleged that these defendants had infringed the copyright in the Advisor\u2122 software.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On this basis, the plaintiff filed Commercial Trademark Suit No. 8 of 2017 before the Court of District Judge at Surat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Along with the main suit, the plaintiff also filed an application for an interim injunction (marked as Exhibit 5 in court) seeking an interim order restraining the defendants from using, distributing, or selling any services that infringed its Advisor\u2122 software copyright, covering both the registered version 6.0 as well as any future machines or devices incorporating the copyrighted software.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-trial-court-and-high-court-proceedings\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Trial_Court_and_High_Court_Proceedings\"><\/span>Trial Court and High Court Proceedings<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The trial court, by its order dated 22 September 2017, dismissed the plaintiff&#8217;s application for an interim injunction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The plaintiff challenged this dismissal before the Gujarat High Court. The High Court, by its order dated 21 December 2017, set aside the trial court&#8217;s order and remitted the matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The High Court&#8217;s key observation was that the central question, whether the source code or object code of the defendants&#8217; software was the same as or copied from the plaintiff&#8217;s software, had not been properly examined.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The High Court directed that both parties should submit their respective source codes and object codes to the court so that these could be sent to an impartial and independent expert for comparison.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This remand order of the Gujarat High Court was itself challenged by the defendants before the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court did not find any ground to interfere, and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 16 March 2018.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-submission-of-source-code-and-object-code\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Submission_of_Source_Code_and_Object_Code\"><\/span>Submission of Source Code and Object Code<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">With the matter thus sent back for a fresh hearing at the trial court level, a series of procedural orders followed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>On 12 February 2018, the trial court appointed a local commissioner.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Both parties were directed to submit their respective source codes and object codes in sealed covers by 21 February 2018.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The parties were also asked to suggest names of experts who could carry out the technical comparison.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>On 28 February 2018, the trial court directed the plaintiff to confirm on affidavit that it had submitted the source code and object code of the software exactly as registered.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-appointment-of-technical-expert\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Appointment_of_Technical_Expert\"><\/span>Appointment of Technical Expert<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On 16 March 2018, the trial court appointed Mr Robert &#8220;Bob&#8221; Zeidman, whose name was proposed by the plaintiff, as the technical expert to compare the software of both parties and to report to the court as to whether the defendants&#8217; source code and object code had infringed the copyright of the plaintiff.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The defendants had proposed the names of three well-regarded Indian institutions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Department of Computer Science and Engineering at IIT Bombay<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Department of Computer Science and Engineering at IIT Madras<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">These suggestions were, however, objected to by the plaintiff on the ground that one of the defendants&#8217; advocates had been associated with these institutions, raising a concern about impartiality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The trial court rejected this objection, rightly observing that an advocate having studied at an institution does not mean the institution could be influenced.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">However, the trial court found that the profiles of the professors attached to the application did not demonstrate that they could conduct the specific task of comparing source and object codes and therefore appointed Mr Zeidman as the most competent person for the task.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-challenge-to-the-expert-s-appointment\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Challenge_to_the_Experts_Appointment\"><\/span>Challenge to the Expert&#8217;s Appointment<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The defendants challenged the appointment of Mr Zeidman before the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 4468 of 2018.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">One of their main objections was that sharing proprietary software with an expert could cause them serious prejudice, as the court&#8217;s processes would not be able to hold a foreign expert accountable if the confidential data were later misused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Gujarat High Court dismissed this application on 1 May 2018, finding the appointment proper.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-scope-of-software-comparison\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Scope_of_Software_Comparison\"><\/span>Scope of Software Comparison<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">After this, the trial court issued another order on 4 May 2018, clarifying that the comparison would be confined only to the source code and object code of the registered version of the plaintiff&#8217;s software, i.e., version 6.0 with copyright registration No. TX8-252-522.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Any additional material furnished by the plaintiff beyond this registered version was specifically excluded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">However, the controversy was not over.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On 1 June 2018, the trial court passed another order while considering logistical arrangements for the expert&#8217;s work, this time directing that the expert could compare the defendants&#8217; source and object code with the plaintiff&#8217;s Advisor\u2122 software across all previous and existing versions, whether registered or not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This significantly expanded the scope of comparison beyond what had been settled in the 4 May 2018 order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-second-round-of-litigation\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Second_Round_of_Litigation\"><\/span>Second Round of Litigation<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The defendants again went to the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 9010 of 2018, challenging this expanded scope.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The defendants also raised a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 8 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of the High Courts Act, 2015.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The High Court dismissed this challenge on 4 July 2018, holding that while exercising its supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it could not act as a court of appeal and interfere with the trial court&#8217;s order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Since no arguments were advanced on the constitutional validity of Section 8, the High Court did not go into that question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-appeal-before-the-supreme-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Appeal_Before_the_Supreme_Court\"><\/span>Appeal Before the Supreme Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Both the High Court orders of 1 May 2018 and 4 July 2018 were then challenged by the defendants before the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petitions No. 17685-17686 of 2018 on 10 July 2018.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">When the matter came up before the Supreme Court on 16 July 2018, counsel for the plaintiff on caveat submitted that Mr Zeidman had already arrived in India to conduct the comparison and that suspending his work would cause the plaintiff great prejudice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court accordingly directed the parties to maintain the status quo and also directed that the travel expenses of Mr Zeidman would initially be borne by the plaintiff but would be reimbursed by the defendants if their challenge ultimately failed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Leave was thereafter granted, and the matter was heard on 30 July 2018.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-case-timeline-at-a-glance\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Timeline_at_a_Glance\"><\/span>Case Timeline at a Glance<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Date<\/th><th>Event<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>22 September 2017<\/td><td>The trial court dismissed the interim injunction application.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>21 December 2017<\/td><td>The Gujarat High Court remitted the matter for fresh consideration.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>12 February 2018<\/td><td>A local commissioner was appointed and source code submission ordered.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>28 February 2018<\/td><td>The plaintiff was directed to confirm the software submitted matched the registered version.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>16 March 2018<\/td><td>Mr Robert &#8220;Bob&#8221; Zeidman appointed as technical expert.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>1 May 2018<\/td><td>The High Court upheld the appointment of an expert.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>4 May 2018<\/td><td>Comparison restricted to registered version 6.0.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>1 June 2018<\/td><td>The trial court expanded the comparison to all versions.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>4 July 2018<\/td><td>The High Court declined interference under Article 227.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>10 July 2018<\/td><td>Special leave petitions filed before the Supreme Court.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>16 July 2018<\/td><td>The Supreme Court ordered the status quo.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>30 July 2018<\/td><td>Matter heard by the Supreme Court.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-the-dispute\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_Dispute\"><\/span>The Dispute<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The case presented the Supreme Court with two focused and specific issues. The first was whether the appointment of Mr Robert &#8220;Bob&#8221; Zeidman, an expert, to compare the software of the two parties was proper and should be allowed to stand, particularly given the defendants&#8217; objections about the security of their confidential source code and the fact that Indian institutions of adequate standing had been available.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The second issue was more significant in terms of principle: once the trial court had already settled by its order dated 4 May 2018 that the comparison would be restricted to only the registered version 6.0 of the plaintiff&#8217;s software, could the trial court then expand that scope by a subsequent order dated 1 June 2018 to include all previous and existing versions of the Advisor\u2122 software, whether registered under copyright or not?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-reasoning-and-analysis-of-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Reasoning and Analysis of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-appointment-of-mr-zeidman-as-expert\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Appointment_of_Mr_Zeidman_as_Expert\"><\/span>Appointment of Mr Zeidman as Expert<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On the first question regarding the appointment of Mr Zeidman as the expert, the Supreme Court was candid that it did not approve of the manner in which the plaintiff had objected to the three reputed Indian institutions suggested by the defendants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court noted that C-DAC, IIT Bombay, and IIT Madras are institutions of great repute and standing. The mere fact that one of the defendants&#8217; advocates had studied at those institutions was, as the Court observed, no ground to have any apprehension about the impartiality and integrity of those institutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The professors suggested by these institutions were acknowledged to be experts in their field, particularly in computer software and software decoding. The Court found no reason why they could be said to lack the requisite experience for comparing the two software programs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court made clear that this observation was not a comment on Mr Zeidman&#8217;s competence, which was not disputed \u2014 the point was that the Indian professors were equally qualified and ought not to have been dismissed by the plaintiff on such a flimsy ground.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-defendants-acquiescence-to-the-appointment\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Defendants_Acquiescence_to_the_Appointment\"><\/span>Defendants&#8217; Acquiescence to the Appointment<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">However, having noted this, the Court took into account an important practical reality: by the time the matter came before the Supreme Court, the defendants had already accepted Mr Zeidman&#8217;s appointment through their own conduct.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Various emails and correspondence placed on record demonstrated that after the appointment was made, the defendants were themselves actively in touch with Mr Zeidman \u2014 asking him about his willingness to visit India, discussing logistics, and enquiring about his fees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This conduct showed, as the Court found, that the defendants had not merely accepted but had clearly acquiesced in the arrangement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The plaintiff correctly submitted that at this stage, having practically cooperated with and acquiesced in Mr Zeidman&#8217;s appointment, there was no justification for the defendants to turn around and contest it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court, therefore, rejected the defendants&#8217; challenge to the appointment of Mr Zeidman and affirmed it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-data-security-concerns-and-safeguards\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Data_Security_Concerns_and_Safeguards\"><\/span>Data Security Concerns and Safeguards<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On the security concern raised by the defendants that sharing their proprietary source code with a foreign expert posed a risk of data compromise, the Court found this concern addressed by the practical arrangements described by the plaintiff&#8217;s counsel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The comparison exercise was to be carried out using a separate laptop with no internet connection, which would always remain in the custody of the local commissioner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">After each day&#8217;s work, all the material on the laptop would be erased.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court found these precautionary steps adequate to ensure the safety and security of the data shared by both parties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The objection on grounds of data security was therefore rejected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Security Measure<\/th><th>Purpose<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Separate Laptop<\/td><td>Dedicated device for software comparison<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>No Internet Connection<\/td><td>Prevent unauthorized data transmission<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Custody of Local Commissioner<\/td><td>Maintain control and oversight<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Daily Data Erasure<\/td><td>Protect confidential source code and information<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-limited-role-of-the-expert\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Limited_Role_of_the_Expert\"><\/span>Limited Role of the Expert<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court also made an important clarificatory observation at this juncture: the task entrusted to the expert, Mr Zeidman, was only to compare the respective software programmes and prepare a report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The question of whether the defendants&#8217; software actually infringed the plaintiff&#8217;s copyright was not for the expert to decide \u2014 that would remain entirely for the court to determine after examining the expert&#8217;s report along with all other evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This clarification was important to ensure that the expert&#8217;s role was understood correctly as that of a technical assistant to the court and not as an adjudicator.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-scope-of-software-comparison-0\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Scope_of_Software_Comparison-2\"><\/span>Scope of Software Comparison<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On the second and more legally significant question \u2014 the scope of comparison \u2014 the Court&#8217;s reasoning was direct and principled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The plaintiff had brought its claim based on two foundations:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>First, it registered a copyright in version 6.0 of the Advisor\u2122 software (registration No. TX8-252-522 in the USA).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Second, rights under common law in respect of all earlier and unregistered versions of the software.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">When the interim injunction application was considered at the earlier stage, the court had proceeded primarily on the basis of the registered copyright.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The plaintiff had never sought, at the interim stage, to rely on its common law rights in earlier unregistered versions to establish a prima facie case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Given this background, the trial court had passed the order dated 4 May 2018 specifically confining the comparison exercise to the source code and object code of the registered version only.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">That order had never been challenged by the plaintiff \u2014 the plaintiff accepted it without any objection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Once a party accepts an order without challenge, it cannot later seek to go behind that order and expand what it had already agreed to.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The trial court&#8217;s subsequent order dated 1 June 2018, which expanded the scope to all previous and existing versions of the software \u2014 whether registered or not \u2014 was, in the Supreme Court&#8217;s view, an error.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The trial court had no occasion or reason to expand the scope once the parties had accepted the restriction, and particularly when the plaintiff had not challenged the 4 May 2018 order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court therefore accepted the defendants&#8217; argument on this point, set aside the expanded scope directed by the order of 1 June 2018, and directed that the comparison shall be restricted to the source code and object code in respect of the registered version 6.0 of the plaintiff&#8217;s software.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Order Date<\/th><th>Scope of Comparison<\/th><th>Supreme Court&#8217;s View<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>4 May 2018<\/td><td>Restricted to registered Version 6.0 only<\/td><td>Correct and binding<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>1 June 2018<\/td><td>Expanded to all previous and existing versions, whether registered or not<\/td><td>Erroneous and set aside<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-decision-on-costs\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Decision_on_Costs\"><\/span>Decision on Costs<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On the question of costs, the Court recalled its earlier direction of 16 July 2018 that all travel expenses of Mr Zeidman would be reimbursed by the defendants if their challenge failed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Since the defendants&#8217; challenge succeeded on one of the two issues \u2014 namely, the scope of comparison \u2014 the court took a balanced approach and directed that only one half of the travel expenses borne by the plaintiff should be reimbursed by the defendants, rather than the entire amount.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-key-takeaways\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Takeaways\"><\/span>Key Takeaways<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The Supreme Court upheld the appointment of Mr Robert &#8220;Bob&#8221; Zeidman as the software comparison expert.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The Court rejected objections relating to data security after finding adequate safeguards in place.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The expert&#8217;s role was limited to technical comparison and reporting, not adjudication of copyright infringement.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The court restored the original restriction limiting comparison to the registered version 6.0 of the Advisor\u2122 software.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The expanded scope introduced by the order dated 1 June 2018 was set aside.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Only half of the travel expenses incurred by the plaintiff were directed to be reimbursed by the defendants.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-final-decision-of-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Final Decision of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court disposed of Civil Appeal Nos. 7304-7305 of 2018 with the following directions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-issue-1-appointment-of-technical-expert\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Issue_1_Appointment_of_Technical_Expert\"><\/span>Issue 1: Appointment of Technical Expert<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The appointment of Mr Robert &#8220;Bob&#8221; Zeidman as the technical expert was affirmed.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>His engagement was upheld as proper given the defendants&#8217; acquiescence.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The safety arrangements for protecting the confidential source codes were found to be adequate.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-issue-2-scope-of-comparison-exercise\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Issue_2_Scope_of_Comparison_Exercise\"><\/span>Issue 2: Scope of Comparison Exercise<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The Court accepted the defendants&#8217; submission.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The scope of the comparison exercise shall be confined only to the source code and object code of the registered version 6.0 of the plaintiff&#8217;s Advisor\u2122 software.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The expanded direction given by the trial court on 1 June 2018 was set aside.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-costs-awarded-by-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Costs_Awarded_by_the_Court\"><\/span>Costs Awarded by the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The defendants were directed to pay one half of the plaintiff&#8217;s expenditure on Mr Zeidman&#8217;s travel.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Payment was to be made within 7 days of the plaintiff disclosing the amount spent.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The plaintiff was directed to disclose the expenditure within 3 days of the judgement.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>No other costs were awarded.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-clarification-on-merits-of-the-dispute\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Clarification_on_Merits_of_the_Dispute\"><\/span>Clarification on Merits of the Dispute<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court expressly clarified that it had not gone into the factual merits of the dispute, and the trial court was to proceed to determine the matter afresh on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observations in the Supreme Court&#8217;s judgement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-point-of-law-settled\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Point_of_Law_Settled\"><\/span>Point of Law Settled<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This judgement settles two practically important procedural principles in the context of software copyright litigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-1-principle-of-acquiescence\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"1_Principle_of_Acquiescence\"><\/span>1. Principle of Acquiescence<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">When a party has accepted a court order and has demonstrated acquiescence in an arrangement through its own subsequent conduct, such as corresponding with an appointed expert and facilitating the engagement, it cannot at a later stage challenge or seek to reverse that arrangement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The principle of acquiescence operates as a significant bar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-2-scope-of-expert-comparison-in-intellectual-property-disputes\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"2_Scope_of_Expert_Comparison_in_Intellectual_Property_Disputes\"><\/span>2. Scope of Expert Comparison in Intellectual Property Disputes<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The scope of an expert comparison exercise ordered by a court in an intellectual property dispute must be kept within the boundaries actually litigated at the relevant stage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">At the interim injunction stage, where the court has proceeded on the basis of registered copyright rights, the scope of the expert comparison directed to assist that inquiry cannot be unilaterally expanded by the court to include unregistered or common law rights unless those rights were actually placed in issue and contested at that stage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The expert&#8217;s role was understood correctly as that of a technical assistant to the court and not as an adjudicator.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">An order settling the scope of such comparison, once accepted by all parties without challenge, acquires a binding character that the same court cannot unilaterally revise without proper cause.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-case-details\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Particulars<\/th><th>Details<\/th><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Case Title<\/strong><\/td><td>Diyora and Bhanderi Corporation and Others vs. Sarine Technologies Limited<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Date of Order<\/strong><\/td><td>30 July 2018<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Case Number<\/strong><\/td><td>Civil Appeal Nos. 7304-7305 of 2018<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Citations<\/strong><\/td><td>(2018) 8 SCC 804; 2018 (9) SCALE 423<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Court<\/strong><\/td><td>Supreme Court of India<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Honourable Judges<\/strong><\/td><td>Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice U.U. Lalit<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-key-legal-takeaways\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Legal_Takeaways\"><\/span>Key Legal Takeaways<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Acquiescence can prevent a party from later challenging an arrangement it previously accepted.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Expert comparison exercises must remain confined to issues actually litigated at the relevant stage.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Courts cannot ordinarily expand the scope of technical examination beyond the rights placed in issue.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>A technical expert assists the court and does not act as an adjudicator.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Orders accepted by all parties may acquire a binding character and cannot be revised without proper cause.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman<\/strong>, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi.<br><br><strong>Disclaimer:\u00a0<\/strong>Images used herein do not reflect actual images used in the judgement, and the same are for illustrative purposes only. Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice, as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.\u00a0\u00a0<br>\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-yoast-seo-related-links yoast-seo-related-links\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-orders-cbi-probe-into-suspicious-death-of-dalit-woman-in-madhya-pradesh\/\">Supreme Court Orders CBI Probe Into Suspicious Death Of Dalit Woman In Madhya Pradesh<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/legality-of-object-in-contracts\/\">Legality of object in Contracts<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/recording-exculpatory-evidence-a-mandate-of-fair-investigation\/\">Recording Exculpatory Evidence: A Mandate of Fair Investigation<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/copyright-registration-process-in-india-a-complete-step-by-step-guide\/\">Copyright Registration Process in India: A Complete Step-by-Step Guide<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/husband-acquitted-in-wifes-burn-death-case-andhra-pradesh-high-court-flags-contradictory-dying-declarations\/\">Husband Acquitted In Wife&#8217;s Burn Death Case: Andhra Pradesh High Court Flags Contradictory Dying Declarations<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction When a company accuses another of stealing its computer software, one of the most critical and technically challenging questions that arises in court is, how does one actually prove that software has been copied? Unlike a physical product where similarities can be seen with the naked eye, software operates through invisible lines of coded<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":26258,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[5149],"class_list":["post-26259","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-intellectual-property","tag-intellectual-property"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.7 (Yoast SEO v27.8) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Supreme Court on Software Copyright Infringement: Expert Source Code Comparison Limited to Registered Software Version - Legal Service India - Articles<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The Supreme Court rules on software copyright disputes, expert source code comparison, acquiescence, and registered software protection.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court on Software Copyright Infringement: Expert Source Code Comparison Limited to Registered Software Version\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Supreme Court rules on software copyright disputes, expert source code comparison, acquiescence, and registered software protection.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Legal Service India - Articles\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-06-17T02:41:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-06-17T02:45:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Capture-18.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"711\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"475\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305\"},\"headline\":\"Supreme Court on Software Copyright Infringement: Expert Source Code Comparison Limited to Registered Software Version\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-17T02:41:32+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-06-17T02:45:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":3478,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/Capture-18.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Intellectual Property\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Intellectual Property\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\\\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court on Software Copyright Infringement: Expert Source Code Comparison Limited to Registered Software Version - Legal Service India - Articles\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/Capture-18.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-17T02:41:32+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-06-17T02:45:44+00:00\",\"description\":\"The Supreme Court rules on software copyright disputes, expert source code comparison, acquiescence, and registered software protection.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/Capture-18.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/Capture-18.jpg\",\"width\":711,\"height\":475,\"caption\":\"Software Copyright Infringement\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Intellectual Property > Supreme Court on Software Copyright Infringement: Expert Source Code Comparison Limited to Registered Software Version\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India - Law Articles\",\"description\":\"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"width\":105,\"height\":95,\"caption\":\"Legal Service India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/legalservicesind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legalserviceind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.youtube.com\\\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305\",\"name\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"url\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"contentUrl\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"caption\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\"},\"description\":\"Professional and Literary Profile Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate, is an alumnus of the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, with over 20 years of experience in IP litigation before the Delhi High Court. He currently serves as a Patent and Trademark Attorney at United &amp; United, a leading intellectual property law firm. Deeply committed to legal scholarship, he has authored more than 900 articles on intellectual property law, published on major platforms including Legal Service India, Bar &amp; Bench, Live Law, SCC Online Blog, Legal Desire, SpicyIP, among others. Beyond his legal practice, he is also an accomplished writer and poet, with over 1,500 literary works and more than 20 books published in Hindi and English. His journey reflects a unique blend of legal advocacy and creative expression, inspired by a passion for justice, knowledge, and reform.\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/author\\\/ajayamitabhsuman\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court on Software Copyright Infringement: Expert Source Code Comparison Limited to Registered Software Version - Legal Service India - Articles","description":"The Supreme Court rules on software copyright disputes, expert source code comparison, acquiescence, and registered software protection.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court on Software Copyright Infringement: Expert Source Code Comparison Limited to Registered Software Version","og_description":"The Supreme Court rules on software copyright disputes, expert source code comparison, acquiescence, and registered software protection.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/","og_site_name":"Legal Service India - Articles","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","article_published_time":"2026-06-17T02:41:32+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-06-17T02:45:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":711,"height":475,"url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Capture-18.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legalserviceind","twitter_site":"@legalserviceind","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/"},"author":{"name":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305"},"headline":"Supreme Court on Software Copyright Infringement: Expert Source Code Comparison Limited to Registered Software Version","datePublished":"2026-06-17T02:41:32+00:00","dateModified":"2026-06-17T02:45:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/"},"wordCount":3478,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Capture-18.jpg","keywords":["Intellectual Property"],"articleSection":["Intellectual Property"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/","name":"Supreme Court on Software Copyright Infringement: Expert Source Code Comparison Limited to Registered Software Version - Legal Service India - Articles","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Capture-18.jpg","datePublished":"2026-06-17T02:41:32+00:00","dateModified":"2026-06-17T02:45:44+00:00","description":"The Supreme Court rules on software copyright disputes, expert source code comparison, acquiescence, and registered software protection.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Capture-18.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Capture-18.jpg","width":711,"height":475,"caption":"Software Copyright Infringement"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-software-copyright-source-code-comparison-diyora-bhanderi-sarine-technologies\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Intellectual Property > Supreme Court on Software Copyright Infringement: Expert Source Code Comparison Limited to Registered Software Version"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","name":"Legal Service India - Law Articles","description":"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization","name":"Legal Service India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","width":105,"height":95,"caption":"Legal Service India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","https:\/\/x.com\/legalserviceind","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305","name":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","url":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","contentUrl":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","caption":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN"},"description":"Professional and Literary Profile Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate, is an alumnus of the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, with over 20 years of experience in IP litigation before the Delhi High Court. He currently serves as a Patent and Trademark Attorney at United &amp; United, a leading intellectual property law firm. Deeply committed to legal scholarship, he has authored more than 900 articles on intellectual property law, published on major platforms including Legal Service India, Bar &amp; Bench, Live Law, SCC Online Blog, Legal Desire, SpicyIP, among others. Beyond his legal practice, he is also an accomplished writer and poet, with over 1,500 literary works and more than 20 books published in Hindi and English. His journey reflects a unique blend of legal advocacy and creative expression, inspired by a passion for justice, knowledge, and reform.","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/author\/ajayamitabhsuman\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Capture-18.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26259","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=26259"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26259\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":26285,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26259\/revisions\/26285"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/26258"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26259"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26259"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26259"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}