Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
BENTLEY SYSTEMS INCORPORATED – Appellant
Versus
PUSB ENGINEERING SDN BHD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. understanding copyright infringement basics (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. establishing bentley's copyright rights (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. legal definition of infringement and security mechanisms (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. evidence of infringement at pusbe's premises (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 19) |
| 5. pusbe's defense lacks merit (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. abuse of process not applicable (Para 28 , 34 , 35) |
| 7. pusbe’s counterclaim arguments (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 8. final orders and reliefs granted (Para 43 , 44 , 46 , 50) |
[After full trial]
Introduction
[1] In a nutshell, this action by the Plaintiff ("Bentley") against the Defendant ("PUSBE") is for copyright infringement. PUSBE's counterclaim against Bentley as pleaded at first glance is, however, not one that can easily be fitted into a nutshell of the usual categories of causes of action. Push come to shove to put a name on it, I would say it is for damages against Bentley for the very bringing of this copyright infringement action against it. In simple terms, PUSBE says that Bentley's action against it is an abuse of process.
Copyright Infringement
[2] In a second nutshell, a successful action for copyright infringement con
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
