Custom Software: Venice IP Court Confirms Obligation to Deliver Source Code to the Client
A 24 June 2025 PI order issued by the IP division of the Court of Venice confirms a well-established line of Italian case law regarding the ownership regime applicable to commissioned software (which we addressed already here).
The dispute involved a Friuli-based start-up incorporated in 2023 to develop a social-marketplace for second-hand sports goods (akin to Vinted). The start-up had retained a Veneto-based software development company to produce a dedicated web and mobile application (native code for iOS and Android).
Despite several months of work, and payment in full of the agreed fee (over sixty thousand euros), the application still contained operational defects and the iOS version had not been delivered.
The client demanded delivery of the source code in order to engage other professionals to carry out corrective measures, but the developer refused.
The client therefore filed a PI application with the IP division of the Venice Court seeking an order compelling delivery of the source code, on the grounds that it owned all economic exploitation rights in the software and that the developer’s refusal effectively blocked its business operations.
The defendant argued that the transfer of the source code had never been expressly agreed and that its delivery was not included in the agreed fee—which would have had to be at least tripled in view of the application's architectural complexity.
The Court upheld the application, reasoning that:
Computer programs that are original qualify as works of art protected under Italian copyright law.
Article 12-bis of the Italian Copyright Law (Law No. 633/1941) provides that, without an agreement to the contrary, the employer holds the exclusive economic rights of exploitation in a computer program created by an employee in the performance of their duties or on instructions from the employer.
Established case law applies this provision by analogy to contracts for services and contracts for intellectual work, recognising a general principle whereby, when parties agree on the creation or development of a creative work for remuneration, all economic exploitation rights—including, in the matter of computer programs, the right to material availability of the source code—vest exclusively in the client.
In this case, the subject matter of the contract was precisely the fee-based creation of the specific work of authorship in dispute.
There was also periculum in mora (urgency), since access to the source code is essential for maintenance, avoiding interruption of business activity, and ensuring the enterprise's attractiveness to potential investors.
The Court therefore ordered the respondent to deliver the source code to the applicant within ten days of service of the order, subject to a penalty (astreinte) of 500 euros for each day of delay, and to reimburse the applicant’s legal fees and costs.