Edozo Limited v Valos (UK) Limited: functionality of computer programs not protected by copyright

The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court has struck out claims alleging indirect copyright infringement of computer source code through copying of software functionality, clarifying important boundaries in software copyright protection.

His Honour Judge Hacon delivered judgement on 21 January 2026 in a dispute between competing providers of property valuation software systems. Valos (UK) Limited had counterclaimed that Edozo Limited infringed copyright in Valos's computer programs by replicating the user experience and operational steps of its platform, despite never having accessed the underlying source code.

Valos alleged that Edozo's software indirectly copied its source code by reproducing what it termed the "dynamic logic and modularity" of the Valos Platform—essentially the sequence of steps and screens presented to users when generating property valuation reports. The counterclaim relied on similarities between these user-facing processes rather than any textual copying of code.

The court struck out this aspect of Valos's counterclaim as disclosing no reasonable grounds, finding it bad in law. Judge Hacon held that copyright in computer programs protects the skill, judgement and labour in devising source code, not the functionality or user experience the program delivers.

The judgement engaged with the established idea-expression dichotomy in copyright law, citing the seminal authorities of Navitaire Inc v easyJet Airline Co Ltd and SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd. In Navitaire, Pumfrey J famously employed the analogy of a chef creating a new pudding recipe: a competitor who replicates the pudding through their own culinary labour does not infringe copyright in the original recipe, despite achieving identical results.

The Court of Appeal in SAS Institute, considering the Software Directive, emphasised that what copyright protects is "the form of expression of an intellectual creation", not the intellectual creation itself. Lewison LJ stated unequivocally that "the functionality of a computer program does not count as a form of expression" and falls on the ideas side of the copyright divide.

Applying these principles, Judge Hacon concluded that the operational steps of the Valos Platform—the "Valos Steps"—formed part of the software's functionality rather than expressing the intellectual creation embodied in the source code. Copying those steps by creating similar "Edozo Steps" could not constitute infringement of copyright in Valos's source code as a matter of law.

The court acknowledged Valos's policy argument that investment in creating useful functionality deserves legal protection. However, Judge Hacon identified alternative protections potentially available: literary or artistic copyright in the user interface elements themselves, and possibly patent protection if the functionality were inventive and not excluded under the European Patent Convention.

The judgement reinforces that software copyright extends to code and its expression, not to the functions that code performs or the user experience it creates. Developers remain free to create functionally equivalent software through independent programming effort, provided they do not copy protected expression such as source code, detailed specifications, or original visual elements.

This principled approach maintains the balance struck by the Software Directive between protecting authors' rights in program code whilst preserving competition and innovation in the software sector. The decision provides valuable clarity on the scope of software copyright in an industry where functional emulation remains commonplace and economically significant.