Judgments addressing software copyright infringement remain relatively rare in French case law. When such a dispute arises at the crossroads of advanced robotics, autonomous navigation, and software engineering, its significance is all the greater.
The judgment delivered on 18 November 2025 by the Bordeaux Court of Appeal is a compelling illustration of how classical copyright principles apply to complex technological ecosystems. By its clarity, rigour and methodical reasoning, the decision deserves close attention.
Beyond its legal interest, the case sheds light on the increasingly intricate technological chains that link different branches of the robotics industry, from assistive service robots to autonomous passenger shuttles. In this respect, the judgment offers both doctrinal consistency and practical relevance.
The dispute originates from the liquidation of a long-established company specialising in service robotics. Its business assets, including an autonomous navigation software programme, hereafter the software at issue, were acquired in May 2017 by Kompaï Robotics.
Originally, this software was designed for assistive robots operating in indoor environments. It enabled safe autonomous movement, obstacle avoidance, trajectory adjustment and sensor data processing, essential functions for robots assisting elderly or mobility-impaired individuals.
These core software modules (sensor fusion, localisation, motion planning, real-time control) are also, with appropriate adjustments, relevant to a broader set of robotic applications.
At the same time, EasyMile was developing autonomous passenger shuttles such as the EZ-10, used on campuses, industrial sites and controlled urban zones. These shuttles rely on advanced navigation software integrating localisation, obstacle anticipation, environmental perception and autonomous decision-making.
This technological overlap provides the context for the dispute. Shortly after acquiring the software at issue, Kompaï discovered similarities between certain files embedded in a robot purchased at auction and components of its own software. A seizure-infringement procedure confirmed the presence of files closely resembling those of the software at issue. Kompaï brought an action for copyright infringement.
The first-instance court recognised the copyright protection of the software but rejected the infringement claim. Kompaï appealed. The Court of Appeal then undertook a detailed analysis of the case, revisiting the issues of ownership, originality and alleged reproduction.
The Court of Appeal begins by recalling the well-established principles governing copyright protection for software: originality depends on the existence of free and creative choices made by the author, expressing their personal imprint, as opposed to decisions dictated solely by technical constraints.
Relying on a private expert report debated adversarially, the Court found that the author of the software at issue had made distinctive and non-standard choices in the structuring and writing of the codebase. These included the modular design, the unconventional overloading of operators, specific memory allocation decisions, the creation of particular code modules and even personal comments revealing the author’s technical reasoning.
Taken together, these elements demonstrate a genuine intellectual contribution sufficient to confer copyright protection.
The Court’s approach is entirely consistent with French and European jurisprudence and reflects a classical, orthodox understanding of software originality, one that rightly deserves approval.
The key issue on appeal concerned whether acts of infringement had occurred after Kompaï became the rights holder on 24 May 2017. Any use prior to that date was irrelevant, as Kompaï was not yet the copyright owner.
The Court identified several characteristic files from the software at issue within EasyMile’s development environment. Crucially, these files had been opened, modified and committed in October 2017 and April 2018, well after the transfer of rights.
EasyMile argued that these operations were mere maintenance actions relating to legacy archives. The Court rejected this argument, considering that the recorded operations required meaningful interaction with the code and could not be characterised as passive handling of historical data.
This active modification after the transfer was decisive. It led the Court to conclude that EasyMile had reproduced and used protected elements of the software without authorisation. The company was therefore held liable for copyright infringement and prohibited from selling products incorporating the infringing files.
In assessing damages, the Court applied Article L. 331-1-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code.
It awarded €80,000 as compensation for economic loss, corresponding to a reasonable hypothetical licence fee based on the use of these software components in approximately 80 autonomous robots.
An additional €1 in moral damages was granted for the loss of opportunity to have Kompaï’s technological contribution recognised in the development of the autonomous vehicles.
This judgment offers an exemplary application of software copyright principles within a technologically advanced industry.
It reaffirms that the rights attached to software follow the holder, that originality may lie in subtle technical choices, and that infringement may arise from any active post-transfer use, even partial, of key code components.
For companies operating in robotics, whether designing assistive service robots or autonomous shuttles, the decision provides essential legal certainty.
Its coherence, clarity and adherence to established legal principles make it a decision of both practical and doctrinal significance.
