In Brief
A software company claimed that a competitor had infringed its copyright in AdvisorTM software, a tool for analyzing precious stone cutting. The trial court appointed a foreign expert to compare the source code and object code of both parties' software and ordered the expert comparison to include all versions of the plaintiff's software, not just the registered version 6.0. The defendants challenged this. The Supreme Court upheld the foreign expert's appointment, finding the defendants had accepted it and data security measures were adequate. However, the Court restricted the comparison scope to the registered version 6.0 only, as the interim stage analysis concerned only registered copyright rights. The trial court had erred in expanding the scope without proper justification.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.