The Ankara Regional Court of Appeal has unanimously overturned the acquittal of a business owner accused of using KeyShot without a license, and sent the case back to the first-instance court for a full investigation. The appeal was pursued by ITCA’s legal team in Turkey on behalf of Luxion, the developer of KeyShot. The decision is final.

At a glance

  • Court: Ankara Regional Court of Appeal, 9th Criminal Chamber
  • Date: 9 September 2026
  • Judgment reversed: acquittal by the Ankara 1st Intellectual and Industrial Property Criminal Court, 14 October 2025
  • Decision: acquittal unanimously reversed; case remitted for re-examination and a new judgment
  • Status: final; no further ordinary appeal

Background

In March 2024, a civil court ordered an evidence preservation inspection at commercial premises in Ankara. A court-appointed expert found KeyShot 2023.3 Pro installed and in use on a company computer without a valid license.

Luxion then filed a criminal complaint under Article 71 of Law No. 5846 on Intellectual and Artistic Works. A panel of experts appointed by the criminal court confirmed Luxion’s economic rights and concluded that installing and using the software without a license infringed its copyright.

The acquittal

The first-instance court nevertheless acquitted the defendant in October 2025. It relied on a Court of Cassation decision holding that an expert report based only on evidence from a civil inspection cannot be the sole and decisive basis for a criminal conviction. The defendant also argued that an employee had installed the software without management’s knowledge.

The appeal: an incomplete investigation is no ground for acquittal

The Court of Appeal agreed that criminal procedure sets its own requirements for digital evidence. But it held that the first-instance court should have gathered that evidence itself instead of ending the case. It listed the steps the court should have taken:

  • order a search and seizure of the computers concerned under Article 134 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, followed by an expert examination;
  • examine the program, its file extensions and any modified files;
  • establish whether KeyShot could have been, and actually was, used in the company’s business;
  • identify and hear the employee who used the computer, including why and on whose instruction the software was installed; and
  • determine the defendant’s position in light of all the evidence.

Because none of this was done, the acquittal rested on an incomplete inquiry and was unlawful.

Why this decision matters

  • A civil inspection is a valid starting point. Evidence from civil proceedings can open the way to a criminal investigation, even if more steps are needed before a conviction.
  • “An employee installed it” must be investigated. The claim that software was installed without management’s knowledge has to be tested against the evidence, not simply accepted.
  • An acquittal is not always the end. Where the facts were not fully investigated, an appeal can reopen the case.

The case now returns to the first-instance court for further investigation and a new decision.

Received a notice from ITCA? See how to verify and resolve it.