Copyright misuse

In this case, Lasercomb had sued Reynolds for making unauthorised copies of its die-making software, which was subject to copyright protection.

Reynolds alleged that Lasercomb had misused its copyright by imposing unreasonable non-compete clause that restricted creating a competing product for a period of one hundred years in its standard licensing agreement.

The Court also held that the defendant need not be subjected to the purported misuse in order to set up a valid defence as Reynolds had not signed the standard licensing agreement.

[9] Lastly, the Court clarified that Lasercomb was free to initiate a suit for infringement once it has purged itself of the misuse and its copyright was not invalidated.

[12] Practice Management, a publisher and distributor of medical books, filed for declaratory relief to have the copyright invalidated when it failed to procure the volume discount it requested.

The doctrine of copyright misuse was upheld by the Seventh Circuit in Assessment Technologies of WI, LLC v WIREdata Inc,[18] which is another case involving computer software.

In Video Pipeline, Inc. v Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc.,[20] the Third Circuit stated that a copyright holder might commit misuse in trying to enforce a license that prohibits criticism of copyright-protected works.

This case has assumed significance because it was decided in a circuit wherein Redbox sued three major studios, namely Universal, Walter and Fox.

India has incorporated fair dealing provisions into its domestic law, which provides important limitations to copyright holders’ rights.

However, the Court was not persuaded by the American jurisprudence on this subject and refused to recognize the doctrine of copyright misuse, as it would amount to adding more grounds than what the statute already provided.