1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ……………………………………………………03

B. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES …………………………………………………….04

C. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ……………………………………………..06

D. STATEMENT OF FACTS ……………………………………………………….07

E. ISSUES RAISED ………………………………………………………………..09

F. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ………………………………………………..10

G. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED …………………………………………………...11

H. PRAYER FOR RELIEF …………………………………………………………22

MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDANTS

 2

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Sr.No Abbreviation Expansion

1. AIR All India Reporter
2. ANR Another
3. E.R. England Reports
4. Fed Federal
5. Hon’ble Honourable
6. ILR Indian Law Reports
7. SC Supreme Court
8. SCR Supreme Court Reports
9. & And

MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDANTS

 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. CONSTITUTION
 The Constitution of India.
B. BOOKS
 K D Gaur: Textbook on Indian Penal Code, 7th ed
 P S A Pillai: Criminal Law, 15th Edn
C. FOREIGN CASES
 Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235

D. LIST OF STATUTES
 The Copyright Act 1957
 Patent Act, 1970
 Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions, 2017

E. INDIAN CASES
 R.G. Anand v. M/s Delux Films and others (1978)
 T. Raghunathan & Anr. v. All India Reporter Ltd., Bombay (1971)
 Shree Ventakesh Films (SVF) v. Vipul Amrutlal Shah (2009)
 Maddock Films Private Limited v. Shiboprasad Mukherjee (2017)
 MRF Limited v. Metro Tyres Limited (2017)
 20th Century Fox v. Zee Telefilms Ltd., (2005)
 Zee Telefilms Limited v. Sundial Communications Private Limited (2003)
 Vinay Vats v. Fox Star Studios India Pvt. Ltd. (2019)
F. INTERNET SOURCES
 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/535/722/
 https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/535/722.html
 https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/civil-procedure/civil-procedure-keyed-to-
yeazell/personal-jurisdiction/piper-aircraft-v-reyno/

MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDANTS

 4

MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDANTS

 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of FDRJ, has jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate over the matter
under article 136 of the Constitution of FDRJ. The Defendant humbly submits to jurisdiction
of this Hon’ble Court and this memorandum on behalf of Defendant is filed before this
Hon’ble Court.

MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDANTS

 6

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Federal Democratic Republic of Jambudeep (FDRJ ) is a multi-racial, multi-lingual,

multicultural, and religious federal democratic state with laws similar to India's. It is a
member of the World Trade Organization and has fully implemented international
obligations under the Berne Convention, Rome Convention, WIPO Copyright Treaty, and
Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances.
2. Pandit Pravek Joshi is a renowned vocalist and music teacher, trained by Ustad Aabid
Khan. He has a three-decade career, learning from other Gharanas and Carnatic Music. In
2018, he received FDRJ's highest civil award, "Jambudeep Ratna."
3. Pandit Joshi has been teaching Hindustani Classical Music, particularly Khyal, for two
decades, with many of his students becoming renowned vocalists. He uses methods based
on ancient texts like Sangita-Ratnakara and Purandara Dasa, known as the "father of
Carnatic Music."
4. Thiru Elisaiyan Adigaman, a computer engineer and student of Pandit Joshi, proposed
reducing Pandit Joshi's music training methods into a written manual. They worked
together on the manual, creating a schematic flow chart and meticulously arranging the
methods. During the Covid pandemic, they completed the work and published the manual
book "Sastriya Sangeet Shiksha Pranali" on September 1, 2020. The book was
copyrighted under the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Copyright Rules, 2013 of FDRJ. The
book was well-received by music learners who were unable to access music schools due
to lockdown. However, some critics criticized the book as merely an assembly of known
methods and facts.
5. Pandit Joshi and Thiru Adigaman applied for a business method patent in the U.S.A.,
following legal advice, and obtained foreign filing permission from the FDRJ's Patent
Office. The USPTO issued the patent on July 1, 2022.
6. In 2019, Thiru Elisaiyan Adigaman and Pandit Joshi founded Music Bots Private Limited
(MBPL), a startup focusing on developing AI applications for remote Hindustani and
Carnatic Classical music training under the Companies Act, 2013.

MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDANTS

 7

7. In October 2020, Pandit Joshi and Thiru Adigaman decided to use music training methods
in an AI application. On November 1, 2020, they granted MBPL permission to use the
methods through a formal license, despite requests being refused by other license seekers.
8. MBPL programmers developed a deep learning algorithm based on Pandit Joshi's
methods, which not only imparts training but also evaluates user performance and
provides human-like voice instructions to correct mistakes. They applied for a patent on
December 1, 2020, with the FDRJ Patent Office issuing the patent on December 1, 2022.
9. In 2015, Chemistry teacher Smt. Chandrani Sen founded E-Adhyayana Private Limited
(EAPL), an educational technology company. Initially, it taught science subjects for grade
11 and 12 students through online videos and tools. Later, it expanded to include arts and
commerce for grade 11 and 12 students. EAPL had a user base of around 2 Lakh students
by March 2020.
10. The Covid pandemic severely impacted teaching and learning activities, particularly for
aspirants interested in learning Hindustani and Carnatic Classical music. In May 2020,
Smt. Chandrani Sen approached Pandit Joshi and Thiru Adigaman to develop teaching
tools and platforms for imparting talim in this music. However, after initial online
meetings, Smt. Chandrani Sen abruptly stopped communication, preventing further
progress or negotiations.
11. The National Education Policy of FDRJ announced incentives for e-teaching companies
during Covid times. EAPL launched "E-Raga Talim" in January 2023, offering training in
Hindustani and Carnatic Classical music. By January 2023, it had 50,000 paid users. The
app incorporates music training methods from "Sastriya Sangeet Shiksha Pranali" with
cosmetic variations and additional features from Western Classical musicological texts.
12. Smt. Chandrani Sen and her company EAPL were given a "cease and desist" notice by
Thiru Elisaiyan Adigaman and Music Bots Private Limited, but they did not respond.
13. The defendants, Pandit Joshi, Thiru Elisaiyan Adigaman, and Music Bots Private Limited,
filed a lawsuit against Smt. Chandrani Sen and her company E-Adhyayana Private
Limited in the High Court of Judicature at Fort Chanakya in Samatata. They demanded a
cease-and-desist notice from Sen and EAPL, but they did not respond. The defendants'
business activities were primarily within FDRJ's geographical limits and their computers
were located in Samatata.
14. The plaintiffs filed an appeal against the trial judge's judgment, which was dismissed by
the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature in Samatata.

MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDANTS

 8

15. The plaintiffs filed Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) against the appellate and trial courts,
which were admitted and the case is now awaiting a final hearing.

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE I- Whether the app “E-Raga Talim” infringes copyright in the book “Sastriya Sangeet
Shiksha Pranali.”

ISSUE II- Whether the patent granted to the plaintiffs/appellants in FDRJ is valid. If yes,
whether “E-Raga Talim” infringes the patent right of the plaintiffs in their FDRJ patent.

ISSUE III- Whether a foreign patent can be enforced in FDRJ on the ground of forum non
conveniens and occurrence of partial cause of action.

MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDANTS

 9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. Whether the app “E-Raga Talim” infringes copyright in the book “Sastriya Sangeet
Shiksha Pranali.”

It is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the app “E-Raga Talim” does not infringe
copyright in the book “Sastriya Sangeet Shiksha Pranali.” There is no copyright infringement
if the same concept is used but it is expressed and portrayed differently.

II. Whether the patent granted to the plaintiffs/appellants in FDRJ is valid. If yes,
whether “E-Raga Talim” infringes the patent right of the plaintiffs in their FDRJ
patent.

The patent granted to the plaintiffs/appellants in FDRJ is not valid on the grounds of lack of
novelty, obviousness, or insufficient disclosure. Hence, the counsel requests for revocation of
the plaintiffs' patent in FDRJ.

III. Whether a foreign patent can be enforced in FDRJ on the ground of forum non
conveniens and occurrence of partial cause of action.

It is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that a foreign patent cannot be enforced in FDRJ on
the ground of forum non conveniens and occurrence of partial cause of action as it is clearly
unfair on the part of the defendants.

MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDANTS

 10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. Whether the app “E-Raga Talim” infringes copyright in the book “Sastriya Sangeet
Shiksha Pranali.”

It is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that there is NO infringement copyright in the book
“Sastriya Sangeet Shiksha Pranali” by the defendant’s app “E-Raga Talim.”

a) Is "Sastriya Sangeet Shiksha Pranali" original?

The book was termed as mere assembly of known methods and facts by well-known
musicology quarters.

Hence it is submitted before the court that while "Sastriya Sangeet Shiksha Pranali" may
contain elements of traditional music teaching methods, it does not meet the edge for
originality required for copyright protection. The methods described in the book are common
knowledge within the classical music community and are similar to scènes à faire, falling
within the realm of unprotectable ideas. The book itself was termed as mere assembly of
known methods and facts by well-known musicology quarters.

Classical music teaching methods, particularly those related to Hindustani and Carnatic
music, have been passed down through generations and are widely known within the musical
community. The techniques described in the book are likely to be common knowledge among
music teachers and practitioners in India and beyond.

In our case, it is clearly seen that the book “Sastriya Sangeet Shiksha Pranali” is not an
original piece of literature in the music industry. As it contains knowledge which is very
common for the people.

b) Absence of Originality Test:

According to copyright laws, originality normally calls for a certain level of originality or
original authorship. To meet this standard, though, requires more than just listing known
methods or gathering previously published data. A work must exhibit a degree of creativity or

MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDANTS

 11

originality that sets it apart from previously published materials in order to be eligible for
copyright protection. In "Sastriya Sangeet Shiksha Pranali," the methods may not meet the
necessary standard of originality if they are discovered to be ordinary or conventional in the
context of classical music education. Thus, there is no infringement copyright in the case.

c) Scènes à Faire Doctrine:

The doctrine of scènes à faire refers to elements within a work that are so standard or
customary within a particular genre or subject matter that they cannot be considered original
to any individual author.

In the context of music education, certain teaching methodologies, exercises, and pedagogical
approaches are expected and inherent to the subject matter itself. These aspects are not unique
to any specific author but rather constitute common practices within the field.

Hence, the methods used by Pandit Joshi and Thiru Adigaman are fundamental to the
teaching of Hindustani and Carnatic Classical music and are not something original which
they themselves made. Therefore, it subject to scènes à faire and merger doctrine. Any
similarity between "E-Raga Talim" and "Sastriya Sangeet Shiksha Pranali" is due to these
customs and cannot be used as evidence of copyright infringement.

d) Combining Idea and Expression:

Ideas are not protected by copyright; rather, ideas are only protected when they are expressed.
The underlying ideas and concepts of "Sastriya Sangeet Shiksha Pranali" are probably shared
by many in the classical music community, even though the organization and presentation of
teaching methods may reflect the author's creative choices. Therefore, rather than being the
result of plagiarism, any resemblances between the book and other instructional resources
may be the result of ideas within the subject matter naturally coming together.

e) An important case in this regard is that of RG Anand v. Deluxe Films.1 The plaintiff was
the author of a play called Hum Hindustani. In 1954, the defendant Mohan Sehgal sent a
letter to the plaintiff expressing his desire to make a movie based on the play. The
plaintiff and the defendant met and discussed the entire play. The defendant did not
commit anything, but the plaintiff later came to know that the defendant released a movie
titled New Delhi. After watching the movie, the plaintiff believed that it was based on the

1
R.G Anand vs M/S. Delux Films & Ors on 18 August, 1978
MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDANTS
 12

story of his play. So, he filed a suit against the defendant for permanent injunction and
damages.
Both the District Court and the High Court ruled against the plaintiff on a finding of the
facts. The case finally reached the Supreme Court of India.

The Supreme Court held that the movie could not be considered an infringement of the play’s
script. The reason it gave was that though the idea behind both the stories was the same,
the manner in which both had been expressed was vastly different from each other.
Therefore, it cannot be held to be copyright infringement.

f) In the case of Shree Ventakesh Films (SVF) v. Vipul Amrutlal Shah 2 a copyright
infringement case before the Calcutta High Court that involved a Bengali language film
that was alleged to be a replica of a popular Hindi language film. While the appellant
defendants argued that the original film was a copy of an old 1970s Hindi language film
and that a similar story is told in a different cultural context does not constitute a
copyright violation, the respondent plaintiffs cited the R.G. Anand case to point out the
fundamental or substantial similarities, and the differences pointed out paled in
comparison to the similarities. Given these circumstances, the judge ruled a
cinematographic film to be “homogenous material,” meaning that each component of the
picture, such as the plot, lyrics, and dialogues, is protected by copyright. Unless there is a
contract, the creator of each of these works owns copyright under Section 17 of The
Copyright Act 1957, and the film created by merging these aspects creates a new
copyright. The point of contention in this case, as well as the paper’s theme, is the
concept of “copy.” The judges answered the question of what is the legal definition of
copying a film. A considerable similarity in any aspect of the cinematographic film must
be recognized as a violation for a theatrical or literary work to be regarded as a “copy” in
terms of exact similarities or substantial similarities that are perceived with ordinary
prudence. As a result, a limited interpretation of the term “copy” should be avoided.
g) The Court relied on N.T. Raghunathan &Anr. v. All India Reporter Ltd., Bombay 3, and
rejected the Appellants' claim because, while there may be some parallels because the
idea in both the movie and the play is the same, it is well-established law that an idea
cannot be copyrighted. The Court decided that if an ordinary person saw the play and the
movie, he would not consider them to be identical. Because the play and movie are so

2
Shree Venkatesh Films Pvt. Ltd vs Vipul Amrutlal Shah & Ors on 1 September, 2009
3
N.T. Raghunathan &Anr. v. All India Reporter Ltd., Bombay [1971]
MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDANTS
 13

dissimilar, the Appellants' claim that their copyright has been violated cannot be
sustained. The Delhi High Court's decision was upheld by the Court.

The Supreme Court issued the following guidelines:

 There can be no copyright in an idea, subject matter, themes, narratives, or historical or

legendary facts, and copyright infringement in such circumstances is limited to the creator
of the copyrighted work's form, style, arrangement, and presentation of the idea.
 Whether the spectator is definitely of the opinion and receives the unambiguous
impression that the later work looks to be a copy of the original after reading or seeing
both works.
 It must be determined whether the similarities constitute basic or substantial
characteristics of the copyrighted work's style of expression. Significant or considerable
copying is required.
 There is no copyright infringement if the same concept is used but it is expressed and
portrayed differently.
 When there are material differences or inadvertent coincidences in the published work, it
is not considered a copyright violation.
 If the viewer concludes after the incident that the film is essentially a replica of the
original play, copyright infringement has been established.
 In circumstances when a movie director infringes on a theatrical performance, the
plaintiff bears the burden of evidence.
h) Following an examination of all of these examples, it can be determined that substantial
similarity and copyright ability of ideas are two aspects that are crucial in copyright
infringement cases. These ideas are crucial in assessing whether or not a case of copyright
infringement has occurred. Ideas are still not protected by copyright. The notion of
substantial similarity and the test of a reasonable man in determining whether two works
are substantially similar or not, which originated with the R.G. Anand case, are still valid
in today’s world.

MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDANTS

 14

II. Whether the patent granted to the plaintiffs/appellants in FDRJ is valid. If yes,
whether “E-Raga Talim” infringes the patent right of the plaintiffs in their FDRJ
patent.
Invalidity of the Patent.

The patent granted to the plaintiffs/appellants in FDRJ is not valid on the grounds of lack of
novelty, obviousness, or insufficient disclosure.

a) Lack of Novelty:

There is no novelty or inventive element introduced in the system described in the patent that
was not previously known or disclosed in prior use. That the components claimed in the
patent were in use already or readily apparent to a person skilled in the art prior to the filing
of the patent application by performing a thorough analysis of current methods and earlier
patents in the field of music education.

In our case, it is clearly stated that Chandrani Sen already had a teaching-learning app made
in the year 2015. Talking about the book published by Pandit and Thiru they did not provide
any new or unique idea which was not known to anybody. Hence, the patent granted should
be revoked.

b) Combination of Existing Techniques:

The patent merely combines existing techniques or elements in the field of music education
without introducing any innovative or non-obvious features. By deconstructing the various
components claimed in the patent and showing their reliance on well-known methods or
technologies, hence, the claimed invention does not meet the threshold for patentability.

And therefore, the patent granted by FDRJ needs to revoked.

c) The Doctrine of Equivalence is a legal principle applied in patent law to determine

infringement when the accused product or process does not literally infringe the claims of
a patent but nevertheless performs substantially the same function in substantially the
same way to achieve substantially the same result as the patented invention.

MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDANTS

 15

With respect to our case, the doctrine of equivalence cannot be applied as there is no
infringement of the patent right.

Under the doctrine of equivalence, courts assess whether the accused product or process
performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve
substantially the same result as the patented invention. This test involves comparing the
elements of the accused product or process with the elements of the patent claim to determine
if they are equivalent.

d) In the case of Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. (2002) 4, the U.S.
Supreme Court reviewed the doctrine of equivalence. The court held that when a patentee
narrows a claim limitation during prosecution for a substantial reason related to
patentability, the patentee may be barred from asserting equivalents for the amended
limitation under the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel.

There is no literal infringement in our case. The book “Sastriya Sangeet Shiksha Pranali”
and the “E-Raga Talim” app have many differences in their own. Hence, calling it
infringement of patent right is clearly wrong. Literal infringement is typically the primary
basis for patent infringement claims.

4
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722 (2002)
MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDANTS
 16

III. Whether a foreign patent can be enforced in FDRJ on the ground of forum non
conveniens and occurrence of partial cause of action.

The doctrine of forum non conveniens allows a court to dismiss a case when there is a more
appropriate forum available where the case could be heard more conveniently and justly.

With reference to our case, a foreign patent cannot be enforced in FDRJ on the ground of
forum non conveniens and occurrence of partial cause of action as it is clearly unfair on the
part of the defendants.

Enforcement of Foreign Patent:

a. Forum Non Conveniens: The plaintiffs' U.S. patent was enforced in FDRJ due to forum
non conveniens, the fact that the alleged infringement mostly happened in the United
States, and the fact that there is not really any significant connection to FDRJ other than
the existence of a few subscribers. For the defendants, an FDRJ judgment would be unfair
and inconvenient.
b. In the case of Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno 19815, the U.S. Supreme Court set out factors
to consider when determining whether to dismiss a case on forum non conveniens
grounds. While forum non conveniens was recognized as a valid doctrine, the Court noted
that dismissal should not be automatic and emphasized the importance of balancing the
private interests of the parties and the public interest factors involved.
c. The landmark judgement that is responsible for the foundation of this doctrine in the
United States is Gulf Oil Corporation V. Gilbert 6 This was a case in which an action
was brought in the federal court of New York for a tort committed in Lynchburg, Virginia.
A suit was filed by the plaintiff whose warehouse was destroyed as result of defendant's
negligence in delivering gasoline. The plaintiff was a resident of Virginia and the
defendant was doing business in Virginia and New York.

The Plaintiff, instead of filling the suit in Virginia where most of the witnesses lived and the
place where the tort occurred, filed the suit in New York, thinking that the New York Jury
would award better number of damages than a Virginia Jury.

5
Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235
6
330 US 501 (1947)
MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDANTS
 17

The Supreme court upheld the decision of the district court that Virginia is a more appropriate
forum and listed two set of factors that must be balanced when ruling on a such a motion. The
first set consists of private factors like Access to evidence, transportation costs and
availability of subpoenas in securing witnesses and similar problems of expense and fairness.

It is important to remember that every case is different and that the choice to enforce a
foreign patent in a Federal District Court will be based on the particular facts and
circumstances of that case. Before rendering a decision, the court will consider various
factors, including the location of the alleged infringement, the extent of the patent holder's
business activities in FDRJ, and the interests of justice and fairness.

MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDANTS

 18

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the lights of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, it is most humbly prayed and implored before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of FDRJ,
that it may graciously be pleased:

1. Dismiss the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Plaintiffs;

2. Uphold the judgment of the Division Bench;
3. To revoke the patent granted to the plaintiffs.

And pass any order that this Hon’ble court may deem fit in the interest of equity, justice, and
good conscience. And for this act of kindness, the counsel for the Defendant shall duty bound
forever pray.

Sd/-
(Counsel for Defendant)

MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDANTS