Absence of written statement and rebuttal of "infringement hits" justifies summary judgment for software copyright infringement.

The Plaintiffs, providers of infrastructure software, hold copyrights in "STAAD.Pro" and "SACS" software.

They utilize "Phone Home Technology" to monitor unauthorized usage.

Defendant No. 1, a former licensee of SACS (license expired in 2017), was found using pirated versions of the software in its Chennai and Bengaluru offices.

Despite a "Litigation Hold Notice" and pre-litigation mediation, the Defendants denied infringement but failed to provide evidence of legal licensing.

During the suit, the Defendants’ right to file a Written Statement was closed due to non-payment of costs and failure to remove registry defects.

The Plaintiffs subsequently moved an application for summary judgment under Order XIIIA of the CPC.

Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to a summary judgment in the absence of a written statement or a valid reply from the Defendants.

Whether the Defendants' use of the software without valid licenses constitutes an infringement of the Plaintiffs' copyright under the Copyright Act, 1957.

The Court applied Order XIIIA, Rules 3 and 6(1)(a) of the CPC (as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015), which permits summary judgment if a party has "no real prospect" of successfully defending a claim.

It relied on the principle from *Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. v. Kunwer Sachdev*, noting that the "real prospect" test requires a "realistic" rather than "fanciful" defense.

The Court also referenced *Disney Enterprises Inc. v. Balraj Muttneja* to establish that in the absence of a defense, the need for oral evidence is obviated.

Substantively, the Court applied Section 40 of the Copyright Act, 1957, regarding the protection of foreign works under the Berne Convention.

The Court noted that the Defendants failed to file a Written Statement or a reply to the summary judgment application, leading to the legal Arctic that the Plaintiffs’ factual assertions remained unrebutted and were thus deemed admitted.

The Plaintiffs produced "infringement hits" data showing extensive unauthorized use of SACS and STAAD software even after the expiration of their 2017 license and during the pendency of the suit.

An independent investigator's affidavit further confirmed employee admissions of unauthorized use.

The Court reasoned that since the Defendants could not produce proof of valid licenses for the specific software in question, they had no "real prospect" of defending the copyright infringement claim.

The Court granted a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from using any pirated or unlicensed software of the Plaintiffs.

While the Plaintiffs waived the claim for damages, the Court awarded actual costs totaling ₹5,55,087/- covering court fees, investigation expenses, and legal fees.

The suit was decreed in favor of the Plaintiffs under Order XIIIA of the CPC.