# When Software Locks Stand Between You and Repairing Medical Equipment By Charles Gideon Korrell (@charlesgideonkorrell) ยท Published 2026-10-17 Canonical: https://voce.com/@charlesgideonkorrell/medical-device-right-to-repair-software-locks-xwm3j7 --- Modern medical equipment increasingly depends on software. That creates an unusual problem when something breaks: repairing a machine may require a technician to get past a password, encryption system, or other digital access control before the technician can even diagnose the problem. Federal copyright law generally prohibits bypassing technological measures that control access to copyrighted software. But does that rule allow a manufacturer to use copyright law to reserve repair work for itself or its authorized service network? A recent federal appeals court decision says not necessarily. In _Medical Imaging & Technology Alliance v. Library of Congress_, the D.C. Circuit upheld an exemption allowing certain digital protections to be bypassed when necessary to diagnose, maintain, or repair medical equipment. The decision is important beyond medical devices because it illustrates a broader principle for software-enabled products: **copyright protection for embedded software does not automatically translate into a legal right to control the aftermarket for servicing the physical product.** ## Why Copyright Law Enters the Repair Shop The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA, generally prohibits circumventing technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works. Because modern equipment often contains copyrighted software, that prohibition can create an obstacle for independent technicians who need to access the software simply to repair the machine. Congress anticipated that the prohibition could sometimes interfere with legitimate activities. The law therefore allows the Librarian of Congress to establish exemptions for particular classes of copyrighted works. One such exemption covers software in certain medical devices and systems when bypassing an access control is necessary for diagnosis, maintenance, or repair of lawfully acquired equipment. Medical-device industry groups challenged that exemption. Their concern had an obvious economic dimension. If independent service companies can access the software needed to repair equipment, hospitals and other equipment owners may hire them instead of paying manufacturers or their authorized providers for service. But the court concluded that losing repair business is not necessarily the type of economic harm copyright law protects. ## Losing Repair Revenue Is Not the Same as Losing Software Sales The distinction at the heart of the decision is relatively simple. Copyright law protects markets for copyrighted works and legitimate derivatives of those works. The manufacturers therefore needed more than evidence that independent repair companies competed with them for service revenue. They needed to connect that competition to a market for the copyrighted software itself. That connection was missing. The administrative record indicated that the software at issue was embedded in medical equipment and did not have an established independent market separate from the machines. Independent technicians were not selling competing copies of the software or licensing substitute programs. They were temporarily accessing software already present in customers' equipment so they could restore the equipment to working condition. The court therefore upheld the government's conclusion that competition for repair services did not, by itself, establish harm to the copyright market. That distinction matters whenever a company sells a software-enabled physical product and expects continuing revenue from maintaining it. A profitable service business may be commercially connected to copyrighted software without becoming a copyright market itself. ## The Exemption Has Important Limits The decision does **not** create a general right to defeat software locks whenever someone wants to repair a product. The exemption applies to specified medical-device software and related data files, and only when circumvention is necessary for diagnosis, maintenance, or repair of lawfully acquired equipment. The case also involved temporary access to embedded software, rather than copying programs for reuse on other machines, distributing them to customers, or using them to develop competing products. Those activities could raise very different copyright questions. The court also was reviewing the government's decision to create the exemption. It was not deciding that every repair activity falling near its boundaries is lawful, nor was it resolving every contractual, licensing, warranty, or other legal restriction that might apply to servicing equipment. ## What the Decision Means for Software-Enabled Products For equipment owners and independent repair businesses, the decision confirms that the presence of copyrighted software inside a product does not necessarily give the manufacturer exclusive control over legitimate repair. But anyone relying on a DMCA exemption should verify that the particular equipment, access, and activity actually fall within its terms. For manufacturers, the larger lesson concerns how intellectual-property rights fit into an aftermarket strategy. If servicing revenue is important to a product's economics, copyright should not automatically be treated as the legal mechanism protecting that revenue. Contracts, software licenses, warranties, product architecture, access arrangements, and other rights may play different roles, subject to their own legal limitations. The decision also suggests that how software is developed and commercialized can matter. A separately developed and licensed diagnostic program with its own customers and revenue could present a different copyright analysis from operational software bundled into a machine and never independently sold. Ultimately, the case draws a useful line between **protecting copyrighted software and protecting a business model built around servicing products that contain that software**. Those interests may overlap, but they are not legally identical. For a more detailed discussion of the D.C. Circuit's reasoning, fair-use analysis, and implications for software-enabled manufacturers, see the [Technology & Information Law Blog analysis](https://techinfolaw.com/mmita-v-loc-upholds-dmca-medical-device-repair-exemption/). **About the Author:** Charles Gideon Korrell is a technology-transactions attorney and strategic advisor whose practice focuses on technology licensing, commercial transactions, intellectual property strategy, and related matters. More information about his practice is available at [GideonKorrell.com](http://GideonKorrell.com). He publishes the Technology & Information Law Blog at [TechInfoLaw.com](http://TechInfoLaw.com), where he provides more detailed analysis of judicial decisions and legal developments affecting technology and intellectual property.