Russia: Storing software is infringement
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Russia: Storing software is infringement


There was a court case early in 2019 in connection with software unlawfully stored in a computer's memory by the respondent. The infringer was obliged to pay compensation of more than $40,000.

The judgment was appealed but was upheld by the appeal court. While examining the case, the court of appeal stated that storing software in a computer which is the subject matter of copyright is a way of unlawful use of the computer program in the absence of permission from the owner of the software.

This conclusion follows from Article 1, Paragraph 4 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty of which Russia is a member. The article makes reference to the Berne Convention according to which (Article 9) the reproduction right fully applies in the digital environment, in particular to the use of works in digital form. It is understood that the storage of a protected work in digital form in an electronic medium constitutes a reproduction within the meaning of Article 9 of the Berne Convention. A corresponding rule entailing liability is set forth in Article 4 of the Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and Council dated April 23 2009. It provides that actions like downloading on to a computer, displaying on the screen, use, transmission or storing computer programs constitute infringement if done without permission of the owner of the program. The court noted that storing software per se in a computer without approval of the right owner is an independent element of infringement.

This approach is confirmed in a Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No 308-ЭC-14-1400 dated June 8 2016.

As found by the courts of first and second instance, the plaintiff is the owner of software which is the basis of the claim in court.

The presence of the software on hard discs of the computer owned by the respondent was established by the courts of first and second instances during the basis examination and evaluation of the set of pieces of evidence present on file.

The respondent stored software owned by the plaintiff on hard discs of computers owned by the respondent which is infringement per se.

Contrary to the arguments of the respondent, no person aside from himself could have committed the infringement, i.e. downloading and storing the computer programs in the computer's memory.

Vladimir Biriulin

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Dario Pietrantonio of Robic discusses growth opportunities for the firm and shares insights from his journey to managing director
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Law firms that pay close attention to their client relationships are more likely to win repeat work, according to a survey of nearly 29,000 in-house counsel
The EMEA research period is open until May 31
Practitioners analyse a survey on how law firms prove value to their clients and reflect on why the concept can be hard to pin down
The winner of Managing IP’s Life Achievement Award discusses 50 years in IP law and how even he can’t avoid imposter syndrome
Saya Choudhary of Singh & Singh explains how her team navigated nine years of litigation to secure record damages of $29 million and the lessons learned along the way
The full list of finalists has been revealed and the winners will be presented on June 20 at the Metropolitan Club in New York
A team of IP and media law specialists has joined from SKW Schwarz alongside a former counsel at Sky
The Irish government has delayed a planned referendum on whether Ireland should join the Unified Patent Court, prompting concern about when a vote may take place
Gift this article