Siemens v Inzign: Copyright Infringement, Vicarious Liability, and Damages for Unauthorized Software Use
Siemens Industry Software Inc. sued Inzign Pte Ltd in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore on March 1, 2023, for copyright infringement. The case centered on an Inzign employee's unauthorized use of Siemens' NX Software. The primary legal issue was whether Inzign was liable, either directly or vicariously, for the employee's actions. The court found Inzign vicariously liable and awarded damages of $30,574 to Siemens, along with a permanent injunction against future infringements.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff; Defendant found vicariously liable for copyright infringement.
1.3 Case Type
Intellectual Property
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Siemens sues Inzign for copyright infringement due to an employee's unauthorized software use. The court finds Inzign vicariously liable and awards damages.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Siemens Industry Software Inc. (formerly known as Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc) | Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | |
| Inzign Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Vicariously Liable | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Dedar Singh Gill | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Mr. Win, an employee of Inzign, installed an unauthorized version of NX Software on a company laptop.
- The software was used on at least 15 occasions between December 2020 and April 2021.
- Siemens discovered the unauthorized use through an automatic reporting function.
- Inzign had an anti-software piracy policy, but it was not effectively enforced.
- The Lenovo Laptop was left unsecured and without administrative controls.
- Mr. Win used the software to improve his skills, benefiting Inzign.
- Inzign already possessed licenses for some NX Software modules.
5. Formal Citations
- Siemens Industry Software Inc (formerly known as Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc) v Inzign Pte Ltd, Suit No 746 of 2021, [2023] SGHC 50
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mr. Win employed by Inzign Pte Ltd as a machinist. | |
| Defendant came into possession of the Lenovo Laptop. | |
| Mr. Win's role expanded to include programming responsibilities. | |
| Mr. Wong discovered the Lenovo Laptop in the toolroom. | |
| Mr. Win began using the unauthorized NX Software. | |
| Mr. Low discovered the unauthorized use of the Plaintiff’s NX Software. | |
| Mr. Low visited the Defendant’s premises. | |
| Hitachi Sunway Information Systems (Singapore) Pte Ltd provided quotation. | |
| Hitachi Sunway Information Systems (Singapore) Pte Ltd sent email to G-Tech. | |
| Suit No 746 of 2021 filed. | |
| Judge pre-trial conference held. | |
| Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s Opening Statements. | |
| Trial began. | |
| Defendant Closing Submissions. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Copyright Infringement
- Outcome: The court found the defendant vicariously liable for copyright infringement.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Unauthorized use of software
- Primary infringement
- Vicarious liability
- Vicarious Liability
- Outcome: The court held the defendant vicariously liable due to the employment relationship and the creation/enhancement of risk.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Sufficient connection between employer and employee
- Creation or enhancement of risk
- Damages Assessment
- Outcome: The court adopted the hypothetical bargain approach and assessed damages at $30,574.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Hypothetical bargain approach
- Reasonable license fee
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Declaratory Relief
- Permanent Injunction
9. Cause of Actions
- Copyright Infringement
10. Practice Areas
- Copyright Infringement
- Intellectual Property Litigation
11. Industries
- Manufacturing
- Software
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Red Star Marine Consultants Pte Ltd v Personal Representatives of Satwant Kaur d/o Sardara Singh, deceased and anor | High Court | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 115 | Singapore | Cited regarding attribution of acts to a company based on the exercise of specific powers. |
| Ong Seow Pheng and ors v Lotus Development Corp and anor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 113 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of 'authorisation' under s 31(1) of the Copyright Act and factors to consider for authorisation liability. |
| RecordTV Pte Ltd v MediaCorp TV Singapore Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR 830 | Singapore | Cited for the four factors to consider in determining authorisation liability for copyright infringement. |
| Ng Huat Seng v Munib Mohammad Madni | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 1074 | Singapore | Cited for the two-step inquiry to determine vicarious liability. |
| Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ), Singapore Branch v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd and anor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 540 | Singapore | Cited for the policy considerations behind vicarious liability and the 'close connection' test. |
| Al-Hasani v Nettler and anor | English High Court | Yes | [2019] EWHC 640 (Ch) | England and Wales | Cited as recognizing the possibility of vicarious liability in copyright infringement cases. |
| Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd v Miles and ors | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [1961] 3 FLR 146 | Australia | Cited as support for the applicability of vicarious liability to copyright infringement. |
| Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd | High Court of Australia | Yes | [2012] HCA 16 | Australia | Cited Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd v Miles and ors [1961] 3 FLR 146 as support for the applicability of vicarious liability to copyright infringement under Australian law |
| Rank Film Distributors Ltd v Video Information Centre (a firm) | N/A | Yes | [1982] 1 AC 380 | N/A | Cited as copyright infringement constitutes a statutory tort |
| MCA Records Inc and anor v Charly Records Ltd and ors | N/A | Yes | [2000] EMLR 743 | N/A | Cited regarding whether acts of copying were carried out by Mr Win may be attributed to the Defendant such that it is taken to have committed them itself. |
| General Tire and Rubber Co v Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1975] 1 WLR 819 | N/A | Cited for the three approaches which may be adopted in the assessment of damages for infringements of copyright. |
| Stoke-on-Trent City Council v W & J Wass Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1988] 1 WLR 1406 | N/A | Cited for the user principle. |
| David Llewelyn, “Assessment of Damages in Intellectual Property Cases – Some Recent Examples of "the Exercise of a Sound Imagination and the Practice of a Broad Axe"? | N/A | Yes | (2015) 27 SAcLJ 480 | N/A | Cited for the utility of the user principle is particularly evident in cases involving intellectual property. |
| Henderson v All Around the World Recordings Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2014] EWHC 3087 (IPEC) | N/A | Cited for the primary basis for the assessment of damages according to this approach is to consider what sum would have been arrived at in hypothetical negotiations between the parties. |
| Reformation Publishing Company Ltd v Cruiseco Ltd and anor | N/A | Yes | [2018] EWHC 2761 (Ch) | N/A | Cited for the Hypothetical Bargain Approach ultimately serves as a convenient means of valuing the benefit gained by the infringer. |
| Gimpex Ltd v Unity Holdings Business Ltd and ors | N/A | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 686 | N/A | Cited for the exception was enacted to grant the courts the discretion to admit all business records produced in the ordinary course of business which appear prima facie authentic. |
| Lotus Development Corp and anor v Ong Seow Pheng and ors | N/A | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR(R) 514 | N/A | Cited for the aim of an award for additional damages is punishment and deterrence. |
| Wing Joo Loong Ginseng Hong (Singapore) Co Pte Ltd v Qinghai Xinyuan Foreign Trade Co Ltd and anor | N/A | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 814 | N/A | Cited for the power to make a declaration is a discretionary power. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Copyright Act 1987 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act 1893 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- NX Software
- Copyright infringement
- Vicarious liability
- Hypothetical bargain
- Unauthorized software
- Node-locked license
- Floating license
- Anti-piracy policy
- Lenovo Laptop
- CAD/CAM
- Toolroom
- Perpetual license
15.2 Keywords
- copyright infringement
- software piracy
- vicarious liability
- Siemens
- Inzign
- Singapore
- intellectual property
- damages
- injunction
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Copyrights | 95 |
| Intellectual Property Law | 90 |
| Vicarious liability | 80 |
| Damages | 60 |
| Civil Litigation | 40 |
| Evidence | 30 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Intellectual Property
- Copyright
- Software Licensing