Delhi High Court rejects Alexandra Elbakyan’s plea to dismiss copyright infringement case

Delhi High Court rejects Alexandra Elbakyan’s plea to dismiss copyright infringement case

The Sci-Hub owner had filed an application under the Code of Civil Procedure

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the application of Alexandra Elbakyan, the owner of the website Sci-Hub, in a lawsuit filed by publishing houses, Elsevier, Wiley, and American Chemical Society over claims of copyright infringement and online piracy.

In the Elsevier Ltd. and Ors vs Alexandra Elbakyan and Ors case, Elbakyan had filed the application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Maintaining that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action, she contended that the suit was barred by law.

The bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Narula dismissed the application after noting that in a written statement filed earlier, Elbakyan had, “Categorically admitted that the plaintiffs are owners of copyright in subject works.”

The court also noted that earlier Elbakyan had moved another application before the court to withdraw the admission. But in November 2022, it was dismissed.

Justice Narula stated that the plaintiffs had discharged the initial burden under Section 55(2) (dealing with presumed ownership in cases of copyright infringement) of the Copyright Act, 1957 to claim ownership of the works.

The bench further added that a lawsuit could be rejected under the Act only if it did not disclose a cause of action. However, in the instant case, since a cause of action was made out, the lawsuit could not be dismissed.

Sci-Hub is a library website that provides free access to research papers and books. The publishing houses had filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against it and also a similar website, Library Genesis (or Lib-Gen), alleging that the websites were indulging in online piracy.

The publishing houses stated that Sci-Hub had communicated and provided illegal access to the former’s works in the form of medical journals to the public for use and download. Lib-Gen also provided access to works in scientific and medical fields as well as non-scientific works by unauthorized means.

Elbakyan filed her application to dismiss the lawsuit claiming there was no valid copyright assignment agreement between the plaintiffs and the authors. She highlighted that a valid copyright assignment agreement should spell out the royalty to be paid by the assignees to the author of the works in exchange for the “exclusive rights to publish and distribute the articles.”

She further contended that in absence of an agreement to pay such royalty, the agreement would be void under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. She said the agreements demonstrated that the plaintiffs had not compensated the authors with any royalty or any form of consideration.

However, the court held that these were aspects to be examined during adjudication.

While dismissing Elbakyan's application, the bench ruled, “There is a categorical admission of Elbakyan qua copyright in favour of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the legal question urged in the application on the construction of the agreements, is no longer a question of law.

“Further, the dispute relating to the validity of such agreements regarding adequacy or sufficiency of economic/monetary consideration is a question of fact and plea advanced in the application, founded on provisions of the Copyright Act, which would require adjudication on facts. The legality, veracity, and relevancy of such agreements cannot be undertaken at this stage.”

Senior advocate Amit Sibal and advocates Sneha Jain, Snehima Jauhari, R Ramya, Surabhi Pande, and Reshabh appeared for the plaintiffs.

Elbakyan was represented by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan and advocates Rohan George, Shrutanjaya Bhardwaj, Shivani Vij, Akshat Agrawal, Sriya Sridhar, and Nilesh Jain.

Advocates Vrinda Bhandari, Tanmay Singh, Abhinav Sekhri, Gautam Bhatia and Gayatri Malhotra, Rohit Sharma, Nikhil Purohit, Ashok Kumar, Jawahar Raja, Moksha Sharma, Arushi Gupta, Vaisha Sharma, M Dutta, and Aditya Guha represented various intervenors.

The Government of India was advised by central government standing counsel Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar and advocates Srish Kumar Mishra, Sagar Mehlawat, and Alexander Mathai Paikaday.