Brief Introductory Head Note Summary of Case
This case involves a legal battle between a global technology company specializing in medical software and a group of defendants accused of pirating and tampering with that software. The company, Koninklijke Philips N.V. and its related entities, sued Karma Mindtech and others for infringing their copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets in a specialized medical imaging software called IntelliSpace Portal. The dispute escalated when one defendant filed what the company claimed was a false affidavit in response to court-ordered questions, leading to an application for criminal action against him. The court had to decide whether this affidavit amounted to perjury and obstruction of justice, highlighting the importance of honesty in court proceedings.
Factual Background
Koninklijke Philips N.V., along with its affiliates, develops and sells advanced software for medical purposes, including the IntelliSpace Portal, which helps doctors visualize and analyze medical images like MRIs and CT scans. They have invested heavily in creating different versions of this software, with one version registered for copyright in China. To protect their work, they use security tools like the Integrated Security Tool, which controls access through certificates and licenses. Employees and authorized users must sign confidentiality agreements to access this sensitive information, known as Customer Service Intellectual Property.
The defendants, including Karma Mindtech, were accused of bypassing these security measures to access and alter the software without permission. They allegedly imported old hardware like computers and monitors, refurbished them, and installed tampered versions of the IntelliSpace Portal software on them. This tampered software had its trial period extended indefinitely, allowing it to be sold to medical centers for use with diagnostic machines. One defendant, who was a former employee of Philips, had access to confidential information during his job but was said to have misused it.
Philips discovered this through investigations, leading to a police raid where tampered software was seized from the former employee's home. The software found had an unnatural validity period of over 5,000 years, far beyond the normal one-month trial. This raised concerns not just about intellectual property theft but also about potential risks to patient safety if faulty software was used in medical settings.
Procedural Detail
The case began when Philips filed a civil suit in the Delhi High Court seeking a permanent injunction to stop the defendants from dealing with the pirated software, along with demands for damages, accounts of profits, and handover of infringing materials. On December 20, 2023, the court granted a temporary injunction without hearing the defendants first, restraining them from using or selling the software.
Later, Philips filed an application under the Code of Civil Procedure, as modified for commercial cases, asking the court to order the defendants to disclose documents and answer specific questions about their activities, such as when they started pirating the software, who they sold it to, and how they bypassed security measures.
The court allowed this application on December 16, 2024, directing the defendants to answer the first eleven questions by affidavit within four weeks. The deadline passed on January 13, 2025, but one defendant filed his affidavit late on February 8, 2025. Philips then filed another application under the new criminal procedure law, Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, accusing this defendant of committing offenses like perjury and fabricating evidence under Sections 227, 229, 236, 237, and 246 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. This application sought to initiate criminal proceedings against him for lying in his affidavit.
Core Dispute
The main issue in this particular application was whether the defendant's affidavit contained deliberate lies and evasions that amounted to perjury and interfered with justice. Philips argued that the affidavit contradicted the defendant's own earlier statements in his defense, a local commissioner's report, and other admitted documents. For example, the defendant had previously admitted to buying pirated software from a Chinese seller thinking it was genuine and starting his infringing business in August 2021. But in the affidavit, he denied everything vaguely, including any involvement in piracy or access to confidential information. Philips claimed this was a willful attempt to mislead the court, suppress the truth, and fabricate falsehoods, which courts treat seriously to maintain the integrity of legal processes.
Detailed Reasoning and Discussion by Court Including on Judgement with Complete Citation Referred and Discussed for Reasoning
The court, in its judgment, carefully examined the submissions from Philips and highlighted the contradictions in the defendant's affidavit. It noted that the affidavit provided vague denials to every question, summarily rejecting all allegations without specifics, which directly clashed with prior records.
The judge discussed how the defendant's written statement admitted to purchasing the software from a Chinese person for $1200 via PayPal, believing it genuine, only realizing it was pirated after Philips' complaint. This was cited from paragraph 18 of the written statement. However, the affidavit denied any piracy or sales, which the court saw as a clear falsehood.
The local commissioner's report from January 12, 2024, was referenced, where the defendant admitted starting the business in August 2021 and using infringing software. The court quoted the relevant part: "I inquired about the same and was informed by Defendant No. 2 / Karan that he commenced the said business in or around August 2021." This admission contradicted the affidavit's denials.
The employment agreement and undertaking were also key, as they acknowledged the defendant's access to confidential information. The court pointed out that the defendant had admitted the correctness of these documents in court, yet denied access in the affidavit. The Integrated Security Tool credentials further confirmed this access.
In reasoning why this amounted to perjury, the court referred to Sections 227, 229, 236, 237, and 246 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which deal with giving false evidence, fabricating false evidence, using evidence known to be false, and related offenses. It explained that these sections replace older provisions from the Indian Penal Code but maintain the principle that lying under oath to mislead the court is a serious crime.
The judge discussed precedents to support the decision. For instance, in Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma (1995) 1 SCC 421, the Supreme Court of India emphasized that courts must deal sternly with false affidavits as they pollute the stream of justice. The court quoted: "The stream of justice has to be kept clean and pure, and anyone soiling its purity must be dealt with sternly so that others may not dare to repeat the mistake."
Another citation was from Muthu Karuppan v. Pariban (2011) 5 SCC 496, where the Supreme Court held that filing a false affidavit is an attempt to deceive the court and interferes with justice administration. The judgment noted: "Filing of false affidavit or making a false statement on oath in courts aims at striking a blow at the rule of law and no court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions."
The court also referred to Suo Moto Proceedings Against R. Karuppan, Advocate (2001) 5 SCC 289, stressing that perjury undermines the judicial system and must be punished to deter others.
In discussing the application under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which allows courts to proceed against perjury, the judge explained that this provision empowers the court to take cognizance of such offenses without a separate complaint if they occur in its presence. It drew from Rita Markandey v. Surjit Singh Arora (1996) 6 SCC 14, where the Supreme Court clarified that courts can initiate proceedings for perjury if false statements are evident from the record.
The reasoning emphasized that the defendant's actions were suppressio veri (suppression of truth) and suggestio falsi (suggestion of falsehood), intending to obstruct justice. The court rejected any leniency, noting that in commercial disputes involving intellectual property, honesty is crucial to fairly assess damages and infringements.
Decision
The court allowed the application and directed the initiation of criminal proceedings against the defendant under the mentioned sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It ordered the defendant to appear before the appropriate criminal court and imposed costs on him for abusing the process. The civil suit continues separately.
Concluding Note
This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding truth in legal proceedings, especially in intellectual property cases where technical complexities can be exploited. It serves as a warning that false statements, even in affidavits, can lead to severe consequences, reinforcing trust in the legal system.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. & Ors. Vs Karma Mindtech & Ors., 24/11/2025, CS(COMM) 914/2023, 2025:DHC:10345, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation. Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Here are 5 suitable titles for this legal analytical article to be published as a legal research paper in a legal journal:
- Perjury in Intellectual Property Litigation: Analyzing False Affidavits in Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Karma Mindtech
- Safeguarding Judicial Integrity: Court's Response to Evasive Denials in Software Piracy Disputes
- The Perils of Suppressio Veri in Commercial Courts: Lessons from the Philips ISP Infringement Case
- Criminal Ramifications of False Evidence in Civil Suits: A Study of BNSS and BNS Applications
- Trade Secret Protection and Affidavit Accountability: Judicial Reasoning in a Medical Software Piracy Matter
Delhi High Court Initiates Criminal Proceedings Against Defendant in Philips Software Piracy Case
In a significant ruling on intellectual property rights, the Delhi High Court, in the case titled Koninklijke Philips N.V. & Ors. vs Karma Mindtech & Ors., bearing case number CS(COMM) 914/2023, delivered its judgment on November 24, 2025, by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia. The court addressed an application seeking criminal action against one of the defendants for submitting a false affidavit in an ongoing suit over alleged copyright infringement, trade secret violations, and software piracy involving Philips' IntelliSpace Portal (ISP) medical imaging software.
The suit, filed by Philips, accuses the defendants of tampering with and distributing pirated versions of ISP, a proprietary software used for advanced medical imaging analysis. Philips claims the defendants bypassed security measures like the Integrated Security Tool (IST), accessed confidential trade secrets, and sold altered software to diagnostic centers, potentially endangering public health and eroding the company's goodwill. A former Philips employee, Defendant No. 2, is alleged to have misused his access to confidential information.
The court had earlier granted an ex-parte interim injunction in December 2023, restraining the defendants from dealing in the software. Philips then sought discovery through interrogatories, which the court allowed in December 2024. Defendant No. 2's late affidavit, filed in February 2025, contained vague denials contradicting his own written statement, a local commissioner's report, and admitted documents, including admissions of purchasing pirated software from a Chinese seller and starting infringing activities in August 2021.
Justice Karia held that the affidavit amounted to willful suppression of truth and fabrication of falsehood, constituting perjury and obstruction of justice under Sections 227, 229, 236, 237, and 246 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Citing Supreme Court precedents like Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma (1995) 1 SCC 421 and Muthu Karuppan v. Pariban (2011) 5 SCC 496, the court emphasized the need to deal sternly with false statements to preserve judicial integrity. The application under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was allowed, initiating criminal proceedings against Defendant No. 2.
This decision highlights the judiciary's firm stance against perjury in commercial disputes, particularly those involving technology and intellectual property.
Disclaimer:This is for general information only and should not be construed as legal advice as it may contain human errors in perception and presentation: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor (Patent & Trademark Attorney), High Court of Delhi
=====
