Courts around the world are increasingly applying the doctrine of vicarious liability to hold employers accountable for software piracy committed by their employees. This legal principle, long established in areas like tort and employment law, is now being applied with greater force in the context of software copyright enforcement.

The message is clear: companies can be liable for employee actions—even without prior knowledge—if the infringement is linked to the scope of their employment.

What Is Vicarious Liability?

Vicarious liability is a legal doctrine that holds an employer responsible for acts committed by an employee during the course of their duties. The key elements are:

  • The infringing act must occur within the scope of employment;
  • The employer must have some right of control over the employee;
  • There is no need to prove knowledge or intent on the part of the employer.

This doctrine ensures that businesses cannot escape liability by simply blaming employees for unauthorized software use, especially when company equipment, infrastructure, or networks are involved.

A detailed explanation of how courts apply this concept in IP infringement is available in this case summary by Allen & Gledhill.

Recent Global Case Law Supporting Vicarious Liability

Singapore: Siemens v. Inzign Pte Ltd (2023)

The Singapore High Court found Inzign Pte Ltd liable after an employee installed unlicensed Siemens NX software on a company laptop. Despite internal IT policies prohibiting such acts, the court emphasized that passive oversight does not absolve an employer. The act was done within the employee’s scope of work and using company resources—meeting the criteria for vicarious liability.

Netherlands: Siemens v. Altrex and Maverick Valves (2016)

In separate Dutch cases, employees used pirated Siemens software (Femap and Solid Edge) on devices connected to their workplaces. Both courts held the companies vicariously liable, even though one instance involved a personal laptop used for company tasks. The courts emphasized that employers must ensure their tools and environments are not used to facilitate infringement.

Malaysia: Siemens v. Unicorn Solutions (2024)

A Malaysian court ordered Unicorn Solutions to pay over USD 225,000 for three unlicensed NX installations. The court ruled that lack of intent or knowledge by the company was irrelevant—the software was found on work machines, used during working hours, and therefore within the scope of employment.

United States: Adobe v. Canus Productions

In a U.S. federal case, Adobe successfully sued Canus Productions for unauthorized software usage. The court emphasized vicarious liability where the company failed to supervise or control software usage across departments.

Taiwan: IP Court Interpretation

The Taiwanese IP Court reaffirmed that merely having an anti-piracy policy is not enough. Employers must actively enforce, audit, and monitor software installations to avoid exposure to infringement liability.

Key Takeaways for Employers

  • Vicarious liability is real and global: From Asia to Europe to North America, courts are holding employers accountable.
  • Intent is not required: Even if the company didn’t know, it may still be liable.
  • Scope of employment matters: If the infringement happens using company devices or during work hours, courts presume employer accountability.
  • Policy is not protection: Having anti-piracy policies without enforcement is no shield against liability.

ITCA’s Guidance to Industry

Employers must act now to reduce risk:

  • Audit software installations on all company-owned devices
  • Use endpoint controls to block unauthorized software
  • Train employees on licensing compliance
  • Investigate any software use anomalies proactively

ITCA helps rights holders and companies navigate software compliance globally, offering technical investigations, legal support, and strategic enforcement.

Contact ITCA to ensure your organization is protected from employee-driven software liability.