Dassault Systèmes v. Advanced Engg. Solutions, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 994

1. Court: The High Court of Delhi.

2. Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine Del 994: AIR 2025 Del 147: (2025) 102 PTC 169

3. Parties to the Case:

Plaintiff: Dassault Systems and Others.

Defendant: Advanced Engineering Solutions and Another. 

The plaintiffs in the present suit are, 

● Dassault Systèmes (Plaintiff 1), a French Corporation

● Dassault Systèmes Solid Works Corporation (Plaintiff 2) a US based company

● Plaintiff 3, Dassault Systèmes India Private Limited, wholly-owned subsidiary of Plaintiff 1 and sister concern of Plaintiff 2. 

● Plaintiff 3 was set up to carry out business activities and anti-piracy campaigns in India.

           (hereinafter, collectively referred to as “the plaintiffs”).

● Background and Details of the parties:

● The plaintiffs have developed 3-D simulation computer-aided design (CAD), computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) and computer-aided engineering (CAE). These software programs brings process of designing, innovating and manufacturing a product onto a computer system which  are used across various industries such as aviation, defence, mining, automotive and consumer products, etc.

● The subject matter of the suit- “Catia” & “Simulia”, the 2 software programs, out of which Catia is a 3-D modelling and design software that allows the user to model the products in a manner which would stimulate its use in the real world and “Simulia” is a multiphysics modelling software that stimulates the reliability, performance and safety of the products.  The copyright registration certificates of the plaintiffs in respect of the software programs “Catia” and “Solidworks” have been exhibited as Ext. PW 1/6.

● The plaintiffs, owners of the above software systems, operate on a licensing system where customers acquire not the right to ownership but the right to use the software.

● Defendant No.1- Advanced Engineering Solutions, an engineering design and analysis firm consisting of mechanical, electrical, software systems and controls engineering experts.

● In April 2018, when the plaintiffs checked their infringement database and confirmed that the defendants were using unauthorised versions of the plaintiffs’ software program on at least six computer systems.

● A legal notice dated 10 April 2018 was sent to the defendants, informing them about the plaintiffs’ rights in the software and defendants’ copyright infringement. The notice also firmly stated and asked the defendants to stop using the pirated copies, pay the license fee and to cease and desist from further unauthorised use of the software.

● Defendant 2 claimed that he had a licenced copy of the software program “Solidworks” and shared an invoice as proof.

● eCluewise Services informed Defendant 2 that the defendants lacked a global licence to use software purchased in another jurisdiction and clarified that their unauthorised use was tracked in India. They also pointed out that the shared invoice did not match the pirated software version.

● The defendants have not paid the licence fee till date for their unauthorised use of the plaintiffs’ software programs and continue to deny the evidence of infringement despite repeated notifications.

– the suit has been filed seeking relief of permanent injunction and also compensatory damages from the defendants.

● Whether the defendants have used the plaintiffs software products without authorization or license, thereby infringing the plaintiffs copyright?

● Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using their software products without a valid license?

● Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to delivery-up of all infringing copies, equipments, and materials used for unauthorized software use?

                 Section 14 – Meaning of Copyright

•The plaintiffs claimed exclusive rights over their software products                (like CATIA, SolidWorks, etc.), which fall under the definition of “literary works” (Section 2(o)).

•Rights include reproduction, adaptation, and communication to the public—rights that were violated by unauthorized copying and installations by the defendants.

                 Section 51 – When Copyright is Infringed

•Any unauthorized reproduction or use of copyrighted software, without a valid license, is considered infringement.

•The court accepted that using Dassault’s software without proper licensing (beyond agreed users or for commercial benefit) constituted infringement under this section.

               Section 63B – Knowing Use of Infringing Copy of Computer Program

•This criminal provision makes it an offence to knowingly use an infringing software copy.

•Though the matter was civil, the plaintiffs cited this section to emphasize the seriousness of software piracy.

                Section 65A – Protection of Technological Measures

•Dassault used anti-piracy/telemetry tools (e.g., “phone-home” systems) that detect unlicensed use.

•The court noted that circumventing or disabling these digital rights management (DRM) mechanisms was a violation under Section 65A.

 Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 – Temporary Injunctions

•Dassault sought a permanent injunction and interim relief under these rules to prevent further unauthorized usage.

•The court granted both interim and final relief based on:

•Prima facie case

•Balance of convenience

•Irreparable harm

 Section 73 – Compensation for Breach of Contract

•The EULA (End-User License Agreement) forms a binding contract.

•Defendants violated the license agreement terms, triggering liability under Section 73 for consequential damages and compensation.

Plaintiffs claim that they are the copyrights holders of the solidworks, catia and simulia exhibiting the copyright registration certificates establishing prima facie ownership. They have stated that their software Internal “phone-home” tech has recorded repeated license breach by the defendants across multiple computers supporting to which they have produced printouts from their infringement database showing infringement of solidworks and later simulia and also a testimony confirming catia misuse (Ext. PW 1/20-1/22). The plantiffs have issued multiple legal notices since April 2018 demanding cessation of unlicensed use and compensation for which the defendants have failed to respond (Ext. PW1/14-1/17) and has been still in unauthorized use as of July 2020 indicating the ongoing infringement including unlicensed use of catia. On account of unauthorized use and breach of the end-user license agreement , plantiffs had requested a permanent injunction, delivery of pirated copies and damages.

The Defendant No. 2 had initially stated on (18-9-2020) that they held a valid license for solidworks and would obtain further licenses. Then they also declared no use of Catia or Simulia limiting the usage only to Solidworks. Beyond the sole appearance, defendants has not provided any documentation or proof to counter plaintiffs claims. They did not respond to notices nor did they file any license records and did not contest the infringement database evidences. They were eventually procced against ex-parte (March 2021) due to non-cooperation.

Here the court first analyzed whether the Dassault systemes held the legitimate copyrights of the software products: Solidworks, Catia, and Simulia for which the plantiffs furnished copyrights registration certificates, confirming their ownership. Since the defendants did not contest or challenge the plantifffs ownership, the court accepted this as proven.

The plaintiffs firms further conducted technical investigation and revealed that defendants were using the pirated versions of dassault’s software for which the defendants failed to appear in the court despite multiple summons. Hence the court relied on unchallenged evidence concluding that defendants were using the unlicensed software which amounts to copyright infringement under the copyrights act 1957.

The plantiffs further sought for permanent injunction to restrain defendants from any further use, considering the clear infringement the court granted the permanent infringement. The plaintiffs also requested the delivery up all unauthorized copies and related equipment for which the court also directed to deliver all pirated copies and devices containing the infringing software. The plaintiffs claimed damages given ex parte nature of proceedings the court awarded the full amount of damages sought. 

Here my concluding analysis is that the court upheld that the software piracy is a violation of copyright. The judgment emphasize that court can award monetary compensation and also illustrates that ex parte decree can be granted when defendants intentionally avoid legal proceedings.

● A clear case of infringement of copyright is made out. The defendants have taken unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the copyrighted software programs of the plaintiffs by using a pirated version of the plaintiffs’ software.

● The plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of permanent injunction as well as compensatory damages and costs from the defendants 

● Total value of infringement = 4,49,32,244 INR

The ruling in Dassault Systèmes v Advanced Engineering Solutions dramatically changes the landscape of Indian software copyright enforcement and digital IP jurisprudence. Besides, the case realigns the concept of software developers by confirming that software is a “literary work” within the meaning of the Copyright Act, 1957, and, therefore, deserves full statutory protection. The court points out that if the software is installed without any authorization, the software is copied, or the software is used without permission, that software is used, i.e., the software is copied, or the usage is done without the authorization of the user, then this constitutes infringement irrespective of the license user’s claims from the foreign jurisdiction, even if the software is done across multiple systems. Moreover, the ruling permits the use of telemetry, digital tracking tools, and “phone-home” technologies as legal proof of copyright violations. The court accepts these technical investigation records as credible; thus, the court here is setting a strong precedent enabling software companies to rely on technological measures they put in place for monitoring misuse. The decision also sends a clear warning to those who are involved in software piracy that is by ordering permanent injunctions, the delivery-up of infringing copies, and hefty compensatory damages. The court’s readiness to grant relief even in ex parte proceedings strongly suggests that a deliberate non-appearance and evasion by defendants will not protect them from liability. At the end of the day, the case is a big booster for India’s IP rights enforcement ecosystem in the software sector, it is a source of great strength for the binding nature of the End-User Licence Agreements (EULAs), and it is a positive signal from the judiciary to the digital pirates that they will be dealt with firmly. Thus, it is a win for both domestic and global software providers who are operating in India.

● Dassault Systèmes & Ors v Advanced Engineering Solutions & Anr, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 994.

● Dassault Systèmes & Ors v Advanced Engineering Solutions & Anr, AIR 2025 Del 147.

● Dassault Systèmes & Ors v Advanced Engineering Solutions & Anr, (2025) 102 PTC 169 (Del HC).

Statutes 

● Copyright Act 1957.

● Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

● Indian Contract Act 1872.

● ‘Dassault’s Landmark Victory Against Software Infringement’ (LexOrbis, 14 January 2025) https://www.lexorbis.com/dassaults-landmark-victory-against-software-infringement/ accessed 26 November 2025.

● ‘How Delhi High Court’s ruling in Dassault Systèmes & Ors v Advanced Engineering Solutions & Anr changed software piracy enforcement’ https://omramlaw.substack.com/p/how-delhi-high-courts-ruling-in-dassault accessed 26 November 2025

● ‘Delhi High Court Issues Permanent Injunction Against Software Piracy’ https://www.24law.in/story/delhi-high-court-issues-permanent-injunction-against-software-piracy-finds-deliberate-infringement accessed 26 November 2025