Russia: Storing software is infringement

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Russia: Storing software is infringement

7c63f202-46c5-4d99-8329-076d5211f7edindia-computer-related-inventions-min-1-final.jpg

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 SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The UK-India trade deal doesn’t mention legal services, showing India has again failed to agree on a move that could help foreign firms and local practitioners
Eva-Maria Strobel reveals some of the firm’s IP achievements and its approach to client relationships
Lateral hires at Thompson Hine and Pierson Ferdinand said they were inspired by fresh business opportunities and innovative strategies at their new firms
The launch of a new IP insurance product and INTA hiring a former USPTO commissioner were also among the top talking points this week
The firm explains how it secured a $170.6 million verdict against the government in a patent dispute surrounding airport technology, and why the case led to interest from other inventors
Developments of note included the court partially allowing a claim concerning confidentiality clubs and a decision involving technology used in football matches
The firm said adding capability in the French capital completes its coverage of all major patent litigation jurisdictions as it strives for UPC excellence
Marc Fenster explains how keeping the jury focused on the most relevant facts helped secure a $279m win for his client against Samsung
Clients are divided on what externally funded IP firms bring to the table, so those firms must prove why the benefits outweigh the downsides
Rahul Bhartiya, AI coordinator at the EUIPO, discusses the office’s strategy, collaboration with other IP offices, and getting rid of routine tasks
Gift this article