‘Practice-directions’ and Anton Piller orders in ‘software piracy’ cases

SPICY IP:

Manupatra Intellectual Property Review (MIPR), in its October issue, published one of my articles, critiquing the ex-parte orders that are issued by the Delhi High Court in copyright and trademark infringement cases. The article focuses on three issues: the abuse of the special jurisdictional clauses, ‘Anton Piller’ orders and ‘John Doe’ orders. The article is available for download from SSRN over here
This post will stress only on the aspect of the ‘Anton Piller’ orders that are granted by the Delhi High Court in software piracy cases filed by the Business Software Alliance (BSA). A few months ago I had carried this post explaining how the Delhi High Court seems to have evolved a standard format for granting ‘Anton Piller’ orders in software piracy raids. This was a welcome development in light of the fact that historically there was a great variation in the wording of these ‘Anton Piller’ orders. Unfortunately, the Delhi High Court is now back to its old ways. 
The ‘old ways’ refers to those days where some judges would order the seizure and sealing of computer hard-disks containing pirated software, while other judges would allow for only a symbolic seizure of the hard-disk followed by its return to the owner. A smaller minority of judges would allow the plaintiffs to take only a ‘mirror-copy’ of the defendant’s hard-disks’ while another minority would order the defendants to take only a ‘mirror-copy’ of their hard-disks. Technically ‘Anton Piller’ orders can be granted only for the preservation of evidence. This would mean that it is enough to either take a ‘back-up’ copy or a visual inspection without the requirement for sealing the hard-disk. Unfortunately several judges of the Delhi High Court construe ‘Anton Piller’ orders as a means to enforce ‘interim injunctions’ and thus they order