Case Details
- Citation: [2023] SGHC 50
- Title: Siemens Industry Software Inc (formerly known as Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc) v Inzign Pte Ltd
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore (General Division)
- Suit No: 746 of 2021
- Date of Judgment: 1 March 2023
- Judgment Reserved: (as stated in the judgment) 4–7 October and 6 December 2022; judgment reserved thereafter
- Judges: Dedar Singh Gill J
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Siemens Industry Software Inc (formerly known as Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc)
- Defendant/Respondent: Inzign Pte Ltd
- Legal Area: Intellectual Property – Copyright
- Core Issues: Primary copyright infringement; vicarious liability; measure of damages; additional damages and other reliefs
- Statutes Referenced: Copyright Act (including references to Copyright Act 1987); Evidence Act; Evidence Act 1893
- Parties’ Roles in the Dispute: Plaintiff is the copyright owner/licensor of NX™ software; Defendant is an employer whose employee installed and used unauthorised software
- Judgment Length: 43 pages, 11,723 words
- Cases Cited: [2023] SGHC 50 (note: the provided extract indicates “Cases Cited: [2023] SGHC 50”, but the full list of authorities is not included in the supplied text)
Summary
Siemens Industry Software Inc v Inzign Pte Ltd concerned unauthorised use of commercial software by an employee of the defendant company. The plaintiff, the copyright owner of Siemens’ NX™ software, alleged that its copyright was infringed when an employee installed an unauthorised version of the software on a laptop at the defendant’s workplace and used modules of that software on multiple occasions. The defendant did not dispute that the employee committed the infringing acts, nor did it contest the plaintiff’s ownership of copyright or the fact that the employee’s conduct amounted to copyright infringement.
The central questions were therefore not about whether infringement occurred, but about whether the defendant could be held liable for the employee’s infringement, either through primary liability (including agency principles) or through vicarious liability. The court also had to determine the appropriate measure of damages, including whether additional damages should be awarded and whether injunctive relief and declaratory relief were warranted.
On the facts, the High Court analysed the connection between the employee’s employment and the infringing acts, the foreseeability of such misconduct, and the adequacy of the defendant’s anti-piracy controls. The court’s reasoning addressed how copyright law principles interact with employment-based attribution of liability, and how damages should be assessed where the evidence does not precisely identify which software modules were used.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The plaintiff is an American company within the Siemens group. In Singapore, its related entity, Siemens Industry Software Pte Ltd (“SISPL”), distributes and sub-licenses the NX™ software to users via distributors and resellers. The NX™ software is designed for industrial and commercial use, including computer-aided design (CAD), computer-aided manufacturing (CAM), and computer-aided engineering. The software comprises hundreds of modules, and customers typically purchase licences only for the modules relevant to their business needs. Each module licence is structured so that it can only be used by a single user at any one time.
The defendant, Inzign Pte Ltd, is a Singapore company manufacturing medical disposables and surgical supplies using moulding methods. The defendant owned licences for three NX™ modules. In 2011, the defendant employed Mr Paing Win as a machinist, a role involving operation of computer numerical control (CNC) machines. In 2020, his responsibilities expanded to include programming responsibilities, which required him to use the NX™ software.
In 2020, the employee claimed that work slowed down due to the pandemic, leaving him with free time. He sought to familiarise himself with NX™ by watching tutorials on YouTube. While searching for tutorials, he came across videos that allegedly provided instructions for downloading and installing a full version of NX™ without authorisation. He attempted to install the software on his personal computer but failed because it could not support the programme. He also could not install it on one of the defendant’s computers because administrative controls prevented bypassing the system.
The employee then discovered an unused laptop (the “Lenovo Laptop”) left in a drawer in the toolroom by the defendant’s toolroom manager, Mr Wong Quee Seng. According to the employee, there were no administrative controls on this laptop. He downloaded and installed the infringing NX™ software on the Lenovo Laptop and used it on at least 15 occasions between December 2020 and April 2021. The defendant’s internal investigations later confirmed that the employee had installed and used the unauthorised version.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The first key issue was whether the defendant was primarily liable for copyright infringement arising from the employee’s unauthorised acts. Although the employee’s conduct was undisputed, the defendant argued that it should not be held primarily liable because the employee was not acting in the capacity of an agent of the defendant. This required the court to consider the legal basis on which an employer’s responsibility for an employee’s infringement could be attributed as primary infringement, rather than as a separate form of liability.
The second issue was whether the defendant could be held vicariously liable for the employee’s infringement. Vicarious liability in this context required the court to examine whether there was a sufficiently close connection between the employee’s employment and the infringing acts, and whether the misconduct was sufficiently foreseeable in light of the defendant’s systems and controls. The court also had to consider whether the defendant’s conduct (or omissions) contributed to the risk of infringement.
The third and fourth issues concerned remedies. The court had to determine the appropriate measure of damages, particularly where the evidence did not show exactly which NX™ modules the employee used. It also had to decide whether additional damages and other reliefs (such as declaratory relief and a permanent injunction) should be granted, and on what basis.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court began by framing the dispute around attribution of liability. Since infringement, copyright ownership, and the employee’s unauthorised acts were not contested, the analysis focused on whether the defendant could be legally connected to those acts. The court treated the case as one primarily about liability allocation: whether the defendant’s relationship to the employee and its operational environment could justify holding the defendant responsible for infringement committed on its premises using its resources.
On primary liability, the court considered whether the employee’s actions could be characterised as acts done in the course of employment or as acts attributable to the defendant through agency principles. The defendant’s position was that the employee was not acting as its agent and that there was no admission of liability. The plaintiff, by contrast, argued that the close connection between employment and the infringing acts supported liability. The plaintiff pointed to factors such as the employee’s access to the premises with little supervision, the defendant’s alleged failure to ensure understanding and compliance with an anti-software piracy policy, and the defendant’s mismanagement of the Lenovo Laptop—particularly the failure to physically secure it and to impose administrative controls.
In analysing vicarious liability, the court assessed whether the employee’s infringement was closely connected to his employment duties and whether it was reasonably foreseeable. The employee’s job scope included programming responsibilities requiring use of NX™. That fact mattered because it meant the employee had legitimate reasons to use NX™ and had the technical familiarity to use modules effectively. The plaintiff argued that the infringement was for the defendant’s benefit because the employee used the software to develop or test techniques that could be applied to the defendant’s manufacturing work, and that the defendant’s lax controls created and increased the risk of infringement.
The defendant’s response was that it had licensed modules relevant to the employee’s job scope and had implemented anti-piracy measures. It argued that the employee’s downloading and installation of an unauthorised full version was not reasonably foreseeable. The court therefore had to weigh the defendant’s compliance efforts against the practical reality that the Lenovo Laptop lacked administrative controls and was left unsecured. The court’s reasoning reflected a broader policy concern: copyright law aims not only to compensate rights holders but also to deter infringement. Where an employer’s systems make infringement easier, the law may treat the employer’s failure to prevent as relevant to whether vicarious liability should attach.
On damages, the court confronted an evidential difficulty: there was no direct evidence of which specific modules the employee used during the 15 occasions. The plaintiff addressed this by selecting a “representative bundle” of modules typically purchased by users engaged in similar business activities. The plaintiff then calculated damages by summing the licence fees for those modules, relying on the plaintiff’s price book and the commercial licensing structure (perpetual and floating licences with maintenance costs). The defendant challenged the approach, arguing that the plaintiff’s selection was speculative and that damages should reflect actual infringement rather than a proxy.
The court’s analysis of the measure of damages therefore involved balancing evidential limitations with the need for a workable method of quantification. It considered whether the representative bundle approach was a reasonable evidential proxy given the circumstances, and whether the licensing fees claimed were proportionate to the infringement established. The court also considered whether the plaintiff’s method risked overcompensation, particularly if the employee used fewer modules than the representative bundle assumed.
Finally, the court addressed additional damages and other relief. The plaintiff sought additional damages on the basis of the defendant’s “reckless and flagrant” conduct, the benefit obtained from infringement, and the defendant’s lack of remorse and unsatisfactory conduct in proceedings. The defendant’s conduct in the litigation and its compliance posture were relevant to whether additional damages were justified. The court also considered whether declaratory and injunctive relief were appropriate to prevent future infringements, taking into account the nature of the infringement, the steps taken after discovery, and the likelihood of recurrence.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court found that the defendant was liable for copyright infringement for the employee’s unauthorised acts, addressing both the question of primary liability and the alternative basis of vicarious liability. The court’s decision turned on the close connection between the employment relationship and the infringement, as well as the foreseeability of misuse in light of the defendant’s operational controls—particularly the unsecured Lenovo Laptop and the absence of administrative restrictions that would have prevented installation and use of unauthorised software.
On remedies, the court awarded damages using an approach consistent with the evidence available. It also considered whether additional damages and injunctive relief were warranted. The practical effect of the judgment is that employers in Singapore cannot assume that licensing compliance alone will shield them from liability where internal systems and supervision make unauthorised software installation and use feasible. The judgment also provides guidance on how damages may be quantified when the precise modules used cannot be proven with perfect granularity.
Why Does This Case Matter?
Siemens Industry Software Inc v Inzign Pte Ltd is significant for practitioners because it clarifies how Singapore courts may approach employer liability for employee copyright infringement, particularly in the software context. While the employee’s conduct is the immediate cause of infringement, the court’s analysis demonstrates that liability may extend to the employer where there is a sufficiently close connection between employment and the infringing acts, and where the employer’s systems create or increase the risk of infringement.
The case is also practically important for damages assessment. Software infringement cases often involve incomplete evidence about the exact scope of use (for example, which modules were accessed or installed). The court’s willingness to engage with a representative bundle methodology—while scrutinising proportionality and evidential reasonableness—offers a framework for both rights holders and defendants when quantifying damages in complex licensing structures.
For compliance officers and in-house counsel, the judgment underscores the need for robust anti-piracy controls: securing hardware, implementing administrative controls, ensuring staff awareness of licensing policies, and monitoring software use. For rights holders, it illustrates how technical evidence (such as automatic reporting functions and tracing via IP addresses) can support attribution and damages claims even where the infringing conduct is carried out through a single employee’s actions.
Legislation Referenced
- Copyright Act (including references to Copyright Act 1987)
- Evidence Act
- Evidence Act 1893
Cases Cited
- [2023] SGHC 50
Source Documents
This article analyses [2023] SGHC 50 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.