Key Facts
- •PQS (US company) and PQE (English company) developed SPC and gauge management software.
- •Jeff Aughton, a former employee and director of PQE, developed software (ProSPC, InSPC v1, InSPC v2) after leaving PQE.
- •PQ claimed Aughton copied their copyrighted software and confidential information.
- •No source code for ProSPC or InSPC v1 was available, only object code.
- •PQ relied on circumstantial evidence and expert comparison of decompiled code.
Legal Principles
Copyright subsists in source and object code, but not functionality or ideas.
Copinger and Skone James on Copyright, 18th ed, §3-88 to §3-93; SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1482 at §20-§37
Substantial similarity plus access raises a prima facie inference of copying.
Copinger (above), at §7-26; IBCOS Computers Ltd v Barclays Finance Ltd [1994] FSR 275
Use of source code, even as a reminder, breaches confidence.
Cantor Fitzgerald International v Tradition (UK) Ltd [2000] RPC 95, at §87
Copyright ownership for employee work: work must be within the scope of employment and done in the course of employment.
CDPA s.11(2); MEI Fields Designs Ltd v Saffron Cards and Gifts Ltd [2018] EWHC 132 (IPEC)
Outcomes
ProSPC's copyright and confidential information belonged to PQ.
Aughton admitted reusing PQ's code in ProSPC; ProSPC was integral to PQ's business; Aughton's admissions during disciplinary proceedings.
Aughton copied ProSPC when writing InSPC v1.
Significant similarities in ChartTypeEnum (arbitrary order and numbering); circumstantial evidence (deletion of code, inconsistent explanations).
Aughton copied InSPC v1 when writing InSPC v2.
Circumstantial evidence (deletion of InSPC v1 source code, timing of InSPC v2 creation); inherent likelihood of using InSPC v1 source code.
Aughton infringed PQ's copyright and breached confidentiality in writing InSPC v1 and InSPC v2.
Based on findings regarding copying of ProSPC and InSPC v1.