Microsoft ValueLicensing appeal heads toward Supreme Court bid
Microsoft won a partial stay in ValueLicensing’s £270 million case while it seeks UK Supreme Court permission to appeal.
By Dominic Okoye · Staff Writer
· 3 min read
The Microsoft ValueLicensing appeal is moving toward a possible UK Supreme Court fight after Microsoft secured an extended stay in parts of a £270 million dispute over pre-owned software licences. The case matters to enterprise software sellers and buyers because it tests how far a vendor can restrict resale of perpetual on-premise licences while pushing customers toward subscriptions.
The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal ruled in 2025 that the resale and subdivision of Microsoft on-premise software licences did not breach Microsoft’s copyright. Microsoft appealed that ruling and lost in the Court of Appeal on July 7. Proceedings had already been paused in February while that appeal was pending, and on July 21 the tribunal granted an extended stay after Microsoft said it intended to seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The stay is limited. It does not cover ValueLicensing’s disclosure application or its confidentiality application. ValueLicensing said those issues are expected to be considered at a further case management conference in September, meaning parts of the case continue while Microsoft pursues the next appeal step.
What is the Microsoft ValueLicensing appeal about?
ValueLicensing sued Microsoft in 2021, seeking £270 million and alleging that Microsoft restricted the supply of surplus Office licences. The company claims Microsoft used contract terms that pushed customers toward Microsoft 365 subscriptions and stopped them from reselling perpetual licences they no longer needed.
Microsoft initially fought ValueLicensing’s claim on those competition issues, then argued that resale of its software infringed copyright. The Competition Appeal Tribunal rejected that copyright argument, and the Court of Appeal later upheld the tribunal’s decision.
For software operators, the durable issue is the boundary between a perpetual software licence and a vendor’s control over secondary markets. If pre-owned licences can be resold and split without infringing copyright, that supports a market for surplus enterprise software. If Microsoft were ultimately to win on copyright, vendors would have a stronger route to limit those resales.
Why did the tribunal allow only a partial stay?
Tribunal chair Justin Turner KC said it was not yet known whether the Supreme Court would grant Microsoft permission to appeal. He said the tribunal had to weigh the risk of wasted costs if an appeal is allowed and succeeds against the downside of delaying the case.
Turner described allowing the outstanding applications to continue as a “middle ground.” He said those steps were proportionate because ValueLicensing had already won before the tribunal and the Court of Appeal.
The earlier Court of Appeal judgment said Microsoft’s position would create “odd results.” One issue was the difference between software sold on CD-ROM, where Microsoft cannot control resale in the same way, and other forms of distribution. The judgment also referred to UsedSoft, the 2012 EU ruling that blocked Oracle’s attempt to prevent secondhand software licence sales. According to the judgment, Microsoft’s approach would mean a vendor could avoid the effect of UsedSoft by bundling icons or clip art with a program.
The stakes extend beyond ValueLicensing’s own claim. A separate class action with similarities to the case, represented by Alexander Wolfson, could lead to a multibillion-pound payout if it succeeds.
The Register reported that it asked Microsoft for comment and had not received a response. ValueLicensing chief Jonathan Horley told The Register that the company was pleased a full stay had not been granted and said the disclosure and confidentiality applications were important steps toward a full liability trial.
This story draws on original reporting from The Register.
