Ultrasoft Technologies Ltd v Hubcreate Ltd
Decision date: 16 March 2016
Neutral citation: [2016] EWHC 544 (IPEC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This dispute concerned Hubcreate copying three Ultrasoft database program files onto its server in 2009–2010 and whether restoration/hosting of those files amounted to issuing/communicating copies to the public or extracting/re‑utilising substantial parts of the databases. The judge found only UBC (and those who obtained access via UBC) had system‑administrator access to the copied files, accepted Hubcreate’s Part 36 admission of copying and retention, struck out speculative allegations of wider exploitation, and held there was no further infringement by Hubcreate beyond the admitted copying and retention.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium
Where hosted copies of database/program files are concerned, whether acts amount to issuing or communicating to the public (or to extracting/re‑utilising a substantial part) depends on whether members of the public (here, other customers) had access to the files while hosted; evidence that only a single customer had administrator access meant hosting did not, in that case, constitute making the works available to the public for the purposes pleaded.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judge observed it was commercially improbable that Hubcreate would intentionally give customers mutual access to each other’s data, a persuasive factual point rather than a binding legal rule, and commented on procedural shortcomings in the pleadings (notably that pleadings should have been amended after interim striking‑out to reflect the issues remaining for trial).