TEAM CODE: VMC16

th
DR. M.V.V.S. MURTHI 4 NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETETION
TEAM CODE:VMC16

Dr. M.V.V.S Murthi 4th NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MESOMERA

HENRY MAISON

(PETITIONER)

V.

SEPPON TECHNOLOGY VORMIR LIMITED AND OTHERS

(RESPONDENT)

SEPPON TECHNOLOGY VORMIR LIMITED……………. RESPONDENT 1

STATE OF VORMIR ………………………………………… RESPONDENT 2

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

1 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TEAM CODE: VMC16
th
DR. M.V.V.S. MURTHI 4 NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETETION

TABLE OF CONTENT

LIST OF ABBREVIATION 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4
 TABLE OF CASES 4
 LIST OF BOOKS REFERRED 5
 WEBSITES 5-6
 STATUTES 6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 7
STATEMENT OF FACTS 8-9
STATEMENT OF ISSUES 10
[A.] WHETHER MR. MAISON MODIFICATION OF SEPPON’S 10
SOFTWARE CONSTITUTE COPYRIGHT AND PATENT
INFRINGEMENT OR HIS ACTIONS ARE PROTECTED UNDER
RIGHT TO MODIFY OPEN- SOURCE SOFTWARE?
[B.] WHETHER SEPPON’S PRACTICE OF RECORDING AUDIO 10
WITHOUT EXPLICIT USER CONSENT IS A VIOLATION OF THE
RIGHT TO PRIVACY AS GUARANTEED UNDER ART.21 OF THE
NATION’S CONSTITUTION?
[C.] WHETHER THE STATE MAY GRANT INTELLECTUAL 10
PROPERTY PROTECTION TO TECHNOLOGY THAT MAY
QUESTION MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 11
ARGUMENT ADVANCED 12-23
PRAYER 24

2 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TEAM CODE: VMC16
th
DR. M.V.V.S. MURTHI 4 NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETETION

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Art Article
& And
Sec Section
Anr Another
Ors Others
E.g. Example
AIR All India Reporter
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
U.P. Uttar Pradesh
V. Versus
Ed. Edition
IT Information Technology
Ltd Limited
OS Operating System
R&D Research And Development
AI Artificial Intelligence
IPR Intellectual Property Right
UOI Union of India
TRIPs Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
Hon’ble Honourable
UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Right
Co. Company
CRIs Computer-Related Inventions
IoT Internet Of Things
HC High Court

3 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TEAM CODE: VMC16
th
DR. M.V.V.S. MURTHI 4 NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETETION

INDEX OF AUTRHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES:

1. Microsoft Corp. v. Dib, 658 F.3d 210 (5th Cir. 2011).

2. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. 138 S. Ct. 429 (2017).
3. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC v. George Hotz, 2011 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 2476 (N.D. Cal. 2011).
4. Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam vs Hindustan Metal Industries Ltd (AIR
1982 SC 1444).
5. Salmond L. J. in Rado v. John Tye & Son Ltd. ORA/10/2009/PT/CH
6. Macmillan v. Cooper, (1924) 26 Bom LR 292.
7. A John Wiley & Sons Inc. V. Prabhat Chander Kumar Jain, 2010 (44) PTC 458
(Bom.).
8. Performing Right Society Limited v. Urban District Council of Bray, AIR
1930 PC 314.
9. F.L. Berawalla v. R.K. Jain, 26 (1984) DLT 176.
10. CTR Manufacturing Industries Limited v. Sergi Transformer Explosion
Prevention Technologies Pvt. Ltd., 2016 (65) PTC 262 (Bom), p. 285.
11. Reynolds v. Smith, (1903) 20 RPC 123 at p. 126.
12. F. Hoffmann-la Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Limited, 2008 (37) PTC 71 (Del).
13. EMI V. Lissen, (1939) 56 RPC 23.

4 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TEAM CODE: VMC16
th
DR. M.V.V.S. MURTHI 4 NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETETION

LIST OF BOOKS CITED:

1. AVTAR SINGH, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, 1ST ED. (2013)

2. N.S. GOPALKRISHNAN & T.G. AGITHA, PRINCIPLES OF INTELLECTUAL

PROPERTY, 2nd ED. (2014)
3. DR. B L WADHERA, LAW RELATING TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, 5 TH
ED. (2018)
4. PROF. MEENU PAUL, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS, 5TH ED. (2014)

5. V K AHUJA LAW RELATING TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, 3 rd

ED. (2018)
6. DR. J.N. PANDEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, 54th ED. (2017)

7. M P JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTION LAW, 7TH ED. (2014)

8. DR. S K KAPOOR, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS, 20 TH ED.

(2016)

WEBSITES:

1. http://www.scconline.com

2. http://www.manupatrafast.com

3. http://www.findlaw.com

4. http://www.judis.nic.in

5. http://www.indiankanoon.com

6. https://www.eccouncil.org

7. https://indiaai.gov.in

8. https://www.linkedin.com

5 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TEAM CODE: VMC16
th
DR. M.V.V.S. MURTHI 4 NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETETION

9. https://theprint.in

10. https://coe-dasi.nasscom.in

11. https://www.surrey.ac.uk

12. https://blog.ipleaders.in

STATUTES:

1. THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957 (ACT 14 OF 1957)

2. THE PATENTS ACT, 1970 (ACT 39 OF 1970)

3. THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, 2000 (ACT 21 OF 2000)

4. INDIAN TELEGRAPHIC ACT, 1885 (ACT 13 OF 1885)

5. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,1950

6. NATIONAL CYBER SECURITY POLICY, 2013

7. COMPUTER-RELATED-INVENTION GUIDELINES, 2017

8. CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019 (ACT 35 OF 2019)

9. DIGITAL PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION ACT 2023

10. DELHI HIGH COURT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS DIVISION

RULES,2021

6 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TEAM CODE: VMC16
th
DR. M.V.V.S. MURTHI 4 NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETETION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The hon’ble court as jurisdiction to try the instant matter under article 226 of the constitution
of Vormir.1
STATEMENT OF FACTS

1
226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs
(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers,
throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any
person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those
territories’ directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus,
mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose
(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any
Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising
jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in
part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such
Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay
or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under
clause (1), without
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in
support of the plea for such interim order; and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to
the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such
application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the
counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application
within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from
the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever
is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period,
before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is

7 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TEAM CODE: VMC16
th
DR. M.V.V.S. MURTHI 4 NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETETION

SR. NO. FACTS

1. Seppon Technologies Limited:
 An electronic appliance manufacturing company, faced a
decline in market share due to outdated products.
 They invested heavily in R&D to develop an AI-based IoT
refrigerator called the Stelark series, which became a success.
2. Refrigerator made by Seppon Technologies Limited:
 It had application integration of the most popular grocery
delivery services integrated into the fridge where one could
directly make a purchase of inventory items whenever they
were low.
 It also had a premium feature which was a paid service
provided by in their Stelark Line of refrigerators which
provides intelligent recommendations with the help of AI
based on seasons of different items that were available in
different grocery delivery services that were integrated into
refrigerators OS.
 In the paid feature AI also provides recommendations based
on preferences of the users and provides an auto purchase
feature of certain staple items if provided permission to do so.
3. Mr. Henry Maison:
 A freelance engineer and AI programmer, Mr. Maison was
passionate about privacy and against corporations having
control over devices owners purchased.
 To understand functioning of his own Stelark refrigerator’s
functioning and software integration, he researched that its
software was based on open OS Buntu which was freely

open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall,
on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the aid
next day, stand vacated

8 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TEAM CODE: VMC16
th
DR. M.V.V.S. MURTHI 4 NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETETION

available for modification.

4. Changes made on Buntu OS by Seppon Technologies Limited:
 Seppon had made significant changes to the code based on OS
to make it proprietary for which they have been taken
copyright and registered a patent for its functioning as it was
one of a kind AI integrated software for refrigerators
5. Hacking:
 Mr. Maison, along with members of an online forum hacked
into the Stelark refrigerator software and discovered that it
was recording audio logs of conversations and sending them
to Seppon's servers.
6. Modified Software:
 They created modified software to prevent the refrigerator
from creating and sending audio logs.
 They shared this software and installation instructions on the
forum.
7. Media Attention:
 Tech journalists picked up Mr. Maison's post and published
articles about it.
8. Legal Action:
 Seppon's PR team informed the company's management and
legal department about the modified software.
 Seppon decided to issue a seize and desist notice to the forum.

9 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TEAM CODE: VMC16
th
DR. M.V.V.S. MURTHI 4 NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETETION

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

[A.]:

WHETHER MR. MAISON MODIFICATION OF SEPPON’S SOFTWARE

CONSTITUTE COPYRIGHT AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT OR HIS ACTIONS
ARE PROTECTED UNDER RIGHT TO MODIFY OPEN-SOURCE SOFTWARE?

[B.]:

WHETHER SEPPON’S PRACTICE OF RECORDING AUDIO WITHOUT

EXPLICIT USER CONSENT IS A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY AS
GUARANTEED UNDER ART.21 OF THE NATION’S CONSTITUTION?

[C.]:

WHETHER THE STATE MAY GRANT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

PROTECTION TO TECHNOLOGY THAT MAY QUESTION MATTER OF PUBLIC
POLICY?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

10 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TEAM CODE: VMC16
th
DR. M.V.V.S. MURTHI 4 NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETETION

[A.]: WHETHER MR. MAISON MODIFICATION OF SEPPON’S SOFTWARE

CONSTITUTE COPYRIGHT AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT OR HIS ACTIONS
ARE PROTECTED UNDER RIGHT TO MODIFY OPEN-SOURCE SOFTWARE?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that even though the software of the
refrigerator was based on an open-source OS, but Seppon Technology Vormir ltd. Created a
modified expression of the software and got patent on the unique functionality of AI-
integrated software. Mr. Maison hacked into it and disabled one mandatory function in the
software and uploaded the same on a public forum. Hence, infringed copyright and patent
granted to the company. The availability of a right to modify open-source software typically
does not apply to patented technology.

[B.]: WHETHER SEPPON’S PRACTICE OF RECORDING AUDIO WITHOUT

EXPLICIT USER CONSENT IS A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY AS
GUARANTEED UNDER ART.21 OF THE NATION’S CONSTITUTION?

It is to be asserted that Seppon Technology Vormir ltd. did took the explicit consent for the
collection of audio logs from the users of the refrigerators. It is expressly written in the terms
and conditions of the services. USER gave his/her consent when they opted for the services
provided by the product of the company that is Stelark Line of Refrigerators. Company
always adhered with the principles of fundamental rights. Recording audio is just to enhance
the quality of service. Company never used data for any other activity.

[C.]: WHETHER THE STATE MAY GRANT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

PROTECTION TO TECHNOLOGY THAT MAT QUESTION MATTER OF PUBLIC
POLICY?

it is humbly submitted that technology created by Seppon Technology Vormir Ltd. company
doesn’t question any matter of policy. State always checks all the criteria before granting
patent and copyright to any intangible work, same goes with software technology of Seppon’s
company. The question of recording audio is incomprehensible as it records everything which
is the aid to them to enhance the services.

11 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TEAM CODE: VMC16
th
DR. M.V.V.S. MURTHI 4 NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETETION

ADVANCED ARGUMENTS

It is humbly submitted that this suit is maintainable under the original jurisdiction of high
court of mesomere.

Jurisdiction - Every IPR subject matter or case or proceeding or dispute filed before, or
transferred to, the IPD, as defined in Rules 2(i), 2(j) and 2(l), shall be heard and adjudicated
by a Single Judge of the IPD except those that are to be decided by a Division Bench as per
Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2021

Sec 2(i) “Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) subject matter” for the purpose of these Rules,
shall include: i. Matters pertaining to Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks, Geographical
Indications, Plant Varieties, Designs, Semiconductor integrated circuit layout-designs,
Traditional Knowledge and all rights under common law, if any, associated therewith;

(l) “IPR subject matters or cases or proceedings or disputes” shall include all original
proceedings, appellate and other proceedings related to IPR subject matter(s) as defined in
Rule 2(i) above filed before the IPD and shall also include:

(i) IPR suits, revocation applications, cancellation applications, other original

proceedings, appeals and petitions from the various IPOs and all other proceedings
which were hitherto maintainable before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board
(“IPAB”) under provisions of the Act(s).

(ii) All suits filed in which IPR subject matter is involved, either under the respective
statutes or under common law including suits relating to breach of privacy, rights of
publicity.

[A.] WHETHER THE MR. MAISON MODIFICATION OF SEPPONS SOFTWARE

CONSTITUTE COPYRIGHT AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT OR HIS ACTIONS
ARE PROTECTED UNDER RIGHT TO MODIFY OPEN -SOURCE SOFTWARE?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that:

(1) The availability of a right to modify open-source software or fair dealing with a work
on computer program typically does not apply to patented technology.2

2
Section 52(1)(b)(1) of The Copyright Act, 1957.

12 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TEAM CODE: VMC16
th
DR. M.V.V.S. MURTHI 4 NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETETION

(2) Copyright covers the creative expression of the software, while the patent would
likely pertain to unique functionality of an AI- integrated software.

It is submitted that:

(1) the software was based on open-source OS Buntu but had proprietary modifications
in which Co. had invested millions dollar.
(2) After 3 years of intense R&D they came up with a product line of consumer
refrigerators called as Stelark Line of refrigerators, a new product, an AI-based IOT
refrigerator named Stelark series.
(3) It had an application integration of the most popular grocery delivery services
integrated into the fridge where one could directly make a purchase of inventory items
whenever they were low.
(4) It had made some significant changes to the code based on the OS to make it
proprietary for which they have taken copyright and registered patent for its
functioning as it was one of a kind AI integrated software for refrigerators.

It is to be argued that they have taken measures to comply with international intellectual
property standards as outlined in the TRIPS agreement. They can emphasize that TRIPS
recognizes the importance of protecting intellectual property rights.

[A.1] TRIPS AGREEMENT:

TRIPS Agreement emphasizes the importance of intellectual property protection and sets out
the general principles of the agreement.

Software copyright under TRIPS:

13 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TEAM CODE: VMC16
th
DR. M.V.V.S. MURTHI 4 NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETETION

It is to be assert that Seppon’s technology vormir ltd. proprietary software, which includes
the AI-based features of their refrigerators, is eligible for copyright protection under TRIPS.
It is argued that TRIPS provides for the protection of computer programs as literary works.

TRIPS Agreement: Article 103 of the TRIPS Agreement addresses the protection of computer
programs.

(1) It is important to protect intellectual property rights, including patents and copyrights,
to incentivize innovation and investment in the technology industry.
(2) The harm caused to Seppon's business interests, reputation, and revenues as a result of
Mr. Maison's actions, including the distribution of modified software.
There are many cases in which the hon’ble courts held that unauthorized use and
distribution of software constitute infringement of intellectual property.
Microsoft Corp. v. Dib 4

This case established that unauthorized distribution of modified software can constitute
copyright infringement, which supports Seppon's copyright claims.

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.5

This U.S. Supreme Court case underscores the importance of protecting intellectual property
rights in the technology sector, supporting Seppon's intellectual property protection
arguments.

ILLEGAL HACKING

It is to be highlighted before the hon’ble court that petitioner with the help of members of an
online forum hacked into the code of Seppon’s refrigerator’s software. This illegal act makes
him guilty. It is also be asserted that this hacking was done by him with malafide intention,
even before knowing that refrigerator records audio as an aid. His main motive was to copy
the creation of the respondent 1.

It is to be asserted that Mr. Maison and his group wilfully hacked into their proprietary
software, made unauthorized modifications, and distributed it, thereby infringing upon
Seppon's copyright and patent rights.

3
Computer programs, whether in source or object code, shall be protected as literary works under the Berne
Convention (1971).
4
Microsoft Corp. v. Dib, 658 F.3d 210 (5th Cir. 2011)
5
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. 138 S. Ct. 429 (2017)

14 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TEAM CODE: VMC16
th
DR. M.V.V.S. MURTHI 4 NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETETION

Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC v. George Hotz6

This case involved the hacking of Sony's PlayStation and is relevant to Seppon's arguments
regarding unauthorized access and modification of their software.

The Patents (Amendment) Act7 2002.

It amended the definition of invention under section 2(1)(j) as “Invention” means a new
product or process involving an inventive step and capable of industrial application; and as
per section 2(1)(ja) "inventive step" means a feature of an invention that involves technical
advance as compared to the existing knowledge or having economic significance or both and
that makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art.

Further, section 2(1) (ac) states that “"capable of industrial application", in relation to an
invention, means that the invention is capable of being made or used in an industry.

Section 2 (1)(l) defines “new invention” in The Indian Patents Act, 1970 as follows: "New
invention" means any invention or technology which has not been anticipated by publication
in any document or used in the country or elsewhere in the world before the date of filing of
patent application with complete specification, i.e., the subject matter has not fallen in public
domain or that it does not form part of the state of the art.

By above definitions it is concluded that the software technology created by company falls
under definition of Patent as even the software was based on open-source OS Buntu but
company modifies it in a very significant manner that it is used for industrial purpose and was
involved an inventive step as defined per section 2(1)(ja).

Function The term “function” is defined in the Information Technology Act, 2000 (No. 21
of 2000) as “"function", in relation to a computer, includes logic, control arithmetical
process, deletion, storage and retrieval and communication or telecommunication from or
within a computer.”

Storing of the data comes under its functioning. If the refrigerators cannot store data for its
functioning then the main soul of product will not be there. Technology works on input and
then can provide output for its services. It is also underlined that refrigerators were only

6
Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC v. George Hotz, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2476 (N.D. Cal. 2011).
7
The Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 (No. 38 of 2002) came into effect on 20th May, 2003.

15 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TEAM CODE: VMC16
th
DR. M.V.V.S. MURTHI 4 NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETETION

storing the data which was aid for them to provide the services for which the consumers
opted the product that is Stelark line of refrigerator.

Information The term “information” is defined in The Information Technology Act, 2000
(No. 21 of 2000) as "information" includes data, message, text, images, sound, voice, codes,
computer programmes, software and databases or micro film or computer-generated micro
fiche. Inventive step Inventive step is decided in accordance with the provisions of section
2(1)(ja) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970. The determination of inventive step with regard to
CRIs is carried out in like manner as in other categories of inventions.

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on inventive step:

In Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries Ltd8

It was held that “The expression "does not involve any inventive step" used in Section 26(1)
(a) of the Act and its equivalent word "obvious", have acquired special significance in the
terminology of Patent Law. The 'obviousness' has to be strictly and objectively judged. For
this determination several forms of the question have been suggested. Hon'ble Supreme Court
has laid down the test for the purposes of ascertaining as to what constitutes an inventive step
which is to be seen from the standpoint of technological advancement as well as obviousness
to a person who is skilled in the art.

Salmond L. J. in Rado v. John Tye & Son Ltd.9

“Another test of whether a document is a publication which would negative existence of

novelty or an "inventive step" is suggested, as under: “Had the document been placed in the
hands of a competent craftsman (or engineer as distinguished from a mere artisan), endowed
with the common general knowledge at the 'priority date', who was faced with the problem
solved by the patentee but without knowledge of the patented invention, would he have said,
"this gives me what I want?" To put it in another form: "Was it for practical purposes obvious
to a skilled worker, in the field concerned, in the state of knowledge existing at the date of the
patent to be found in the literature then available to him, that he would or should make the
invention the subject of the claim concerned"

8
Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam vs Hindustan Metal Industries Ltd (AIR 1982 SC 1444).
9
ORA/10/2009/PT/CH

16 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TEAM CODE: VMC16
th
DR. M.V.V.S. MURTHI 4 NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETETION

The following points are to be submitted to support Co. arguments:

Copyright Infringement

(1) It is to be argued that Mr. Maison's actions were in clear violation of our intellectual
property rights and that his defense based on open-source software does not exempt
him from liability.
(2) Mr. Maison's primary offense lies in modifying Seppon's proprietary software and
distributing it without authorization. Regardless of the software's open-source
foundation, the specific modifications made by Seppon to create their unique AI-
integrated refrigerator software were duly protected under copyright law.
(3) The modifications introduced by Mr. Maison can be classified as derivative works of
Seppon's copyrighted software. The fact that the underlying OS was open source does
not grant carte blanche for individuals to create derivative works that infringe upon
established copyrights.
(4) Mr. Maison's actions have had a detrimental impact on Seppon Technologies. His
distribution of modified software undermines our ability to control our product's
performance and functionality, potentially leading to security risks and damage to our
reputation.
(5) This action of Mr. Maison has caused loss to the company economically.

Patent Infringement

(1) Seppon Technologies holds valid patents for the unique AI-based functionality
embedded within the Stelark series of refrigerators. Mr. Maison's unauthorized
modifications, aimed at blocking this functionality, directly infringe upon our patent
rights.
(2) While the base OS may be open source, Seppon's patents pertain to specific
innovative features and functionalities integrated into the software. These patents
remain valid even when built upon open-source foundations. Upholding the principle
of Intellectual Property Rights is essential for encouraging innovation. Allowing
individuals to modify and distribute proprietary software, even if based on open-
source elements, would set a dangerous precedent and hinder technological
advancement.

17 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TEAM CODE: VMC16
th
DR. M.V.V.S. MURTHI 4 NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETETION

Mr. Maison's actions clearly amount to both copyright and patent infringement. His
defense based on open-source software modifications does not absolve him of
liability. Seppon Technologies invested substantial resources in research,
development, and legal protection for its proprietary software and deserves the full
protection of the law.

The Copyright Act, 1957

It governs intellectual property protection for literary, artistic, musical, and dramatic works,
including software and computer programs. When assessing whether the state should grant
copyright protection to technology that could potentially infringe on privacy rights, several
considerations come into play:

(1) Originality and Creativity: Copyright protection is granted to original and creative
expressions of ideas. Technology, including software, can be highly creative and
innovative, leading to advancements that benefit society.
(2) Innovation and Progress: Patent protection is granted to encourage innovation and
technological progress. Many technologies, including those related to privacy
concerns, have the potential to enhance the quality of life and contribute to societal
development.

Macmillan v. Cooper,10 "

It was the product of the labour, skill and capital of one man which must not be appropriated
by another, not the elements, the raw materials, upon which the labour and skill and capital of
the first had been expended. To secure copyright for the product, it was necessary that the
labour, skill and capital should have been expended sufficiently to impart to the product some
quality or character which the raw material did not possess, and which differentiated the
product from the raw material.

Section 51 of the copyright act 11states the provisions as when copyright is infringed
under the act.

10
Macmillan v. Cooper, (1924) 26 Bom LR 292.
11
Section 51 of The Copyright Act, 1957.

18 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TEAM CODE: VMC16
th
DR. M.V.V.S. MURTHI 4 NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETETION

Section 51 lays down provision for the infringement of rights of copyright owner which is
different from those of the licensee. It may be possible that the bundle of the rights of the
owner may include the rights of the licensee, but the infringement of the rights has to be
measured from the rights of the owner and not from the limited rights of the licensee.12

If an individual without the consent or licence of the owner of the copyright does or authorize
the doing of an act to issue the copies of the work to the public not being copies already in
circulation, or distribute infringing copies either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent
as to effect prejudicially the owner of the copyright or to reproduce the work in any material
form including the storing of it in any medium by electronic means he will be infringing the
right to copyright work as per section 51 read with section 14(a) and section 14(b) of the
Copyright Act, 1957. No doubt innocence is no defence to a charge of infringement of
copyright and offence is completed even if the offender authorizes the infringement
innocently as per the De a decision of Privy Council in Performing Right Society Limited v.
Urban District Council of Bray.13

It is further shown that the copying affects the fruits of the labour of the author.14

CTR Manufacturing Industries Limited v. Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention ologies

Pvt. Ltd.15,

The court stated that the material previously known to the art have been used in a completely
unique and novel fashion. They do not work independently of each other in a known way;
and the patent lies precisely in the combination of their use, the timing, and the manner in
which their known functions are deployed to deliver a stated result. Mosaicking' is cobbling
together bits and pieces, is not in and of itself a complete defence to a patent infringement
action except in very limited circumstances.

In Reynolds v. Smith16, Buckley L.J.

observed "Discovery adds to the amount of human knowledge, but it does so only by lifting
the veil and disclosing something which before it had been unseen or dimly seen. Invention
also adds to human knowledge, but not merely by disclosing something. Invention
12
John Wiley & Sons Inc. V. Prabhat Chander Kumar Jain, 2010 (44) PTC 458 (Bom.) at p.475
13
Performing Right Society Limited v. Urban District Council of Bray, AIR 1930 PC 314.
14
F.L. Berawalla v. R.K. Jain, 26 (1984) DLT 176.
15
CTR Manufacturing Industries Limited v. Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,
2016 (65) PTC 262 (Bom), p. 285.
16
Reynolds v. Smith, (1903) 20 RPC 123 at p. 126.

19 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TEAM CODE: VMC16
th
DR. M.V.V.S. MURTHI 4 NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETETION

necessarily involves also the suggestion of an act to be done, and it must be an act which
results in a new product, or a new result, or a new process, or a new combination for
producing an old product or an old result."

Mr. Maison had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims, particularly
regarding the extent of harm caused to users and the violation of privacy rights.

[B.] WHETHER SEPPON’S PRACTICE OF RECORDING AUDIO WITHOUT

EXPLICIT USER CONSENT IS VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY AS
GUARANTEED UNDER ART. 21 OF THE NATION’S CONSTITUTION?

It is humbly submitted that Seppon technology vormir ltd. was only was creating audio logs
of everything that was aid in front of them and they were sending these logs to Seppon’s
servers to be stored as data. They were only using data to enhance the services. they were not
selling the data to any other third party.

It is to be contended that user consent for audio recording is implicit in the terms and
conditions that users agree to when they purchase and use their Stelark series refrigerators. In
these terms, esp. term 7, Seppon have included clauses outlining data collection practices,
including audio recording, and users have accepted these terms when setting up their
appliances. This acceptance should be seen as implied consent.

It is to be highlighted that the audio recordings serve a legitimate purpose related to the
functioning and improvement of their products. It is to be claimed that the audio data is used
for quality control, diagnostics, and enhancing the user experience. The recordings are not
used for invasive or unauthorized purposes; hence, it is to be asserted that our actions are
justifiable.

It is to emphasize that technological advancements in consumer electronics often involve data

collection for product improvement. The users come to expect and accept such practices as a
standard part of using modern appliances. Seppon's data collection practices align with
industry standards and user expectations, it is to be contended that they are not violating
privacy rights.

Seppon highlights their commitment to data security and encryption. Audio recordings are
securely stored and protected, with access restricted to authorized personnel only. This

20 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TEAM CODE: VMC16
th
DR. M.V.V.S. MURTHI 4 NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETETION

approach ensures that user data remains confidential and is not exposed to unauthorized
parties.

 Lack of Personal or Sensitive Information: It is to be emphasized that the audio

recordings are focused on ambient sounds and appliance-related interactions, rather
than capturing personal conversations or sensitive information, this minimizes the
potential intrusion into user’s private lives.
 Compliance with Applicable Data Protection Laws: it is to be asserted that
Company is in compliance with any applicable data protection laws and regulations
within the nation.17 Our data collection practices are consistent with legal
requirements and industry standards, further justifying their actions.
 Transparency and User Control: it is to argued that company provide transparency
to users by disclosing their data collection practices and offering users the option to
disable or limit data sharing. This empowers users to make informed choices about
their privacy.
 Public Interest in Technological Advancement: It is to be contended that our
innovative products, which rely on data collection for AI-driven features, serve the
public interest by advancing technology and enhancing the convenience and
functionality of consumer appliances.
 No Evidence of Privacy Violations: it is also to be asserted that there is no evidence
of privacy violations or misuse of audio recordings on their part. As long as the data is
used for legitimate purposes and not for invasive surveillance or harm to users,
privacy rights are upheld.
 Indemnification: It is also to be contended that Mr. Maison is obligated to indemnify
us for losses or damages resulting from his breach of the Legal Terms. This clause
serves as a basis for seeking compensation for harm caused to Seppon. Because of
this act of Mr. Maison company faced a downfall in the market and also in reputation.

Clause 22 (2) of the terms and conditions states that user have to indemnify the
company for breach of legal.

17
Digital Data Protection Act,2023(Act No.22 of 2023)

21 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TEAM CODE: VMC16
th
DR. M.V.V.S. MURTHI 4 NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETETION

Clause 23 of the same terms and conditions which is USER DATA , it states that user
give consent to transmit the data to the Services for the purpose of managing the
performance of the Services, as well as data relating to your use of the Services.

[C.] WHETHER THE STATE MAY GRANT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

PROTECTION TO TECHNOLOGY THAT COULD QUESTION MATTER OF
PUBLIC POLICY?

It is humbly submitted that in order to obtain a patent, an applicant must fully and particularly
describe the invention therein claimed in a complete specification. The disclosure of the
invention in a complete specification must be such that a person skilled in the art may be able
to perform the invention. This is possible only when an applicant discloses the invention fully
and particularly including the best method of performing the invention.18

The specification is a techno-legal document containing full scientific details of the invention
and claims to the patent rights. The specification, thus, forms a crucial part of the patent
application. It is mandatory on the part of an applicant to disclose fully and particularly
various features constituting the invention.

The specification can mainly be divided into two parts:

(1) The description (which may be accompanied by diagrams or drawings) and the claim.
The description is to disclose the invention sufficiently, whereas the claim is to mark
out the scope of monopoly rights which are likely to be conferred by the patent office
in case the patent is granted.
In EMI v. Lissen,19 Lord Russell stated: The function of the claims is to define clearly
and with precision the monopoly claimed, so that others may know the exact
boundaries of the area within which they will be trespassers. Their primary object is
to limit and not to extend the monopoly. What is not claimed is disclaimed. Section 10
of the Patents Act, 1970 requires that every specification, whether provisional or
complete is to describe the invention. The specification is to begin with a title
sufficiently indicating the subject-matter to which the invention relates.
18
F. Hoffmann-la Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Limited, 2008 (37) PTC 71 (Del.), where the co stated that the complete
specification should fully and particularly describe the invention and operation or use and the method by which
it was to be performed. It should also disclose the best method of performing the invention, which was known to
the applicant and for which he was entitled to claim protection; and end with a claim or claims defining the
scope of the invention for which protection was claimed.
19
EMI V. Lissen, (1939) 56 RPC 23 at p.39.

22 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TEAM CODE: VMC16
th
DR. M.V.V.S. MURTHI 4 NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETETION

F. Hoffmann-la Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Limited,20

The court held that the application of anyone desirous of seeking patent has to contain
specifications that are to conform to the requirements of section (10)

Industrial Applicability: In patent law, industrial applicability or industrial application is a

patentability requirement according to which a patent can only be granted for an invention
which is capable of industrial application, i.e., for an invention which can be made or used in
some kind of industry. section 2(1)(ac) of Indian Patents Act, 1970 as follows: "capable of
industrial application", in relation to an invention, means that the invention is capable of
being made or used in an industry.

Above applicability has been added to show that product which is Stelark line of Refrigerator
falls under all condition even if it is industrial applicability or new inventive. The state
granted patent and copyright protection after following all the legal procedures laid down
under The Patents Act and The Copyright Act.

It is to be humbly submitted that state granted copyright and protection to the company as it
adhered with all the rules and regulations.

20
F. Hoffmann-la Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Limited, 2008 (37) PTC 71 (Del.).

23 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TEAM CODE: VMC16
th
DR. M.V.V.S. MURTHI 4 NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETETION

PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, legal pleadings and authorities cited, may this
Hon’ble Court be pleased to:

 To hold Henry Maison liable for infringement of copyright and patent rights and grant
damages of 25 crore rupees for the infringement of copyright and patent rights.
 To hold that product of Seppon Technology Vormir Ltd. doesn’t violate right to
privacy and state is in upright position to grant copyright and patent rights.
. AND/OR
Pass any such other orders as it deems fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity, and good
conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

Date: 6th October 2023

s/d

Counsel on behalf of the Respondents

24 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TEAM CODE: VMC16
th
DR. M.V.V.S. MURTHI 4 NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETETION

25 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT