Bentley Systems Inc and Anr. v. Ahmed Ibrahim Abdelsalam Ahmed Elshorbagy and Ors.

What happened

The first plaintiff, Bentley Systems Inc, is a global provider of infrastructure software to engineers, architects, geospatial professionals, constructors and infrastructure operators with its principal office in Pennsylvania, and the second plaintiff is its Indian subsidiary, based in Delhi, set up to carry out its business and anti-piracy campaigns in India. The programs in issue are RAM Concept, iTwin Analytical Synchronizer, iTwin Services Add-in and STAAD. Defendants 1 to 3 are said to be the directors of the fourth defendant, which provides engineering and structural design services. The plaintiffs said that their registered copyright is being infringed by use of the software without authority or licence and that they learned of the infringement from messages received through the phone-home technology, as shown by documents on pages 325 and 326 of their documents. They sought an ex parte ad-interim injunction against copying, reproducing, storing, installing or using pirated or unlicensed copies of the software, and against the defendants, their agents and others at the defendants' premises formatting computer systems or erasing data, log files or installations pertaining to the infringement.

Questions before the court

• Have the software owners made out a prima facie case for an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the unlicensed use of their copyright software and the erasure of data and installations that evidence the use?

Why the court ruled this way

The Court recorded the plaintiffs' case that they own registered copyright in the programs, that the software is used without authority or licence, and that the infringement came to light through phone-home messages (paragraphs 22-24). On a preliminary appreciation of the matter it was of the view that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience also lay in their favour and against the defendants, and that irreparable loss and injury would be caused to the plaintiffs if the interim injunction as prayed for were not granted (paragraph 28).

Controlling point

On a preliminary appreciation, software owners that show, through phone-home messages, that their registered copyright software is being used without a licence make out a prima facie case, with the balance of convenience and the risk of irreparable injury in their favour, for an ex parte ad-interim injunction against unlicensed use and against destruction of evidence of the use.

Order and next steps

The Court passed an ex parte ad-interim order of injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, in terms of prayers 25(a) and 25(b), until the next date of hearing, and directed the plaintiffs to comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3 within three weeks. It issued notice on the application, to be served by all permissible modes and returnable before the Joint Registrar, with replies to be filed within 30 days of service and rejoinders within 30 days thereafter, exempted the plaintiffs from attempting pre-litigation mediation and from advance service on the defendants, having regard to Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi and Chandra Kishore Chaurasia v. R A Perfumery Works, allowed them to file additional documents within 30 days and to file the court fee within one week, registered the plaint as a suit, issued summons for written statements within 30 days, and listed the matter before the Joint Registrar on 3 December 2026.

Practical implications

A software owner that learns of unlicensed use through built-in telemetry can seek an ex parte ad-interim injunction against use and against the erasure of data that evidences it, and a business served with such an order should stop using the programs without a licence and preserve its systems, logs and installations.

Limits of this ruling

• The order is an ex parte ad-interim order passed on a preliminary appreciation, continues only until the next date of hearing, and the reasons are brief. The Court did not decide infringement, the subsistence of copyright or the reliability of the telemetry evidence. The order describes defendants 1 to 4 but refers to use of the software by defendant no. 5, and the defendants' licence position was not heard.