- Tribunal Pause: The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal has paused most proceedings involving used-software reseller ValueLicensing.
- Appeal Gate: Microsoft reportedly intends to seek UK Supreme Court permission, but the court has not granted it.
- Active Applications: Disclosure and confidentiality applications remain active, and ValueLicensing expects a September case-management conference.
- Resale Dispute: The reported £270 million claim concerns resale of perpetual downloaded software, not time-limited subscriptions.
The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal approved a partial pause for Microsoft by extending the stay of most proceedings in its case against used-software reseller ValueLicensing.
Microsoft has indicated its intention to seek UK Supreme Court permission, but the court has not granted that approval. Permission is required before the Supreme Court will hear the dispute; neither the partial stay nor a permission request decides liability.
Disclosure and confidentiality applications remain outside the stay. Disclosure determines which documents the parties must exchange, while confidentiality rules govern how sensitive material is handled. Keeping both applications active allows evidence preparation to advance even as the central claim slows.
Historically, ValueLicensing’s 2021 licensing-resale dispute began with the used-software reseller’s reported £270 million claim.
From 2014 through 2022, restrictive clauses and discounts allegedly reduced supplies of second-hand perpetual Windows and Office licences.
ValueLicensing brought a damages claim against Microsoft over alleged competition-law breaches concerning software-licence sales. At issue is when perpetual software, bought for continuing use rather than through a time-limited subscription, can be divided and resold. Resellers need eligible licences for inventory, while enterprise customers use the secondary market to obtain continuing-use software outside a new subscription.
Official proceedings name three Microsoft entities as defendants. Microsoft did not respond to a request for comment before publication. A stay is a court-ordered pause, not a ruling on the merits.
What the Partial Stay Leaves Moving
On July 7, the Court of Appeal dismissed Microsoft’s jurisdiction and preliminary-issue appeals. Microsoft argued that copyright in downloaded software had not been exhausted at first sale, preventing third parties from lawfully subdividing or reselling it. Its loss left the Competition Appeal Tribunal able to decide copyright issues within the competition claim.
Microsoft’s appeals followed a November 2025 preliminary copyright ruling. It concluded that resale and subdivision of the company’s on-premise licences did not infringe Microsoft’s copyright. That decision addressed preliminary copyright issues rather than liability for the damages claim.
Software-licence exhaustion limits a copyright owner’s control after a perpetual copy is sold. It can apply to downloaded perpetual software but does not make a subscription resalable. Lawful resale also requires the first buyer to stop using a sold copy, preventing one licence from supporting simultaneous use by seller and buyer.
Justin Turner KC, chair of the Competition Appeal Tribunal panel, described the cost-delay trade-off:
“As yet it is unknown whether permission to appeal to the Supreme Court will be granted. It is necessary for me to balance the potential for a waste of costs in the event permission is granted and an appeal is successful, against the undesirability of delay in these proceedings.”
Justin Turner KC, chair of the Competition Appeal Tribunal panel (via The Register)
By pausing the core claim, the tribunal limits spending on proceedings that a successful appeal could alter without freezing preparation for a liability trial. ValueLicensing can continue seeking documents and protections for confidential material while Microsoft pursues its possible appeal.
Jonathan Horley, ValueLicensing’s chief executive, welcomed the ability to advance the two applications. Disclosure and confidentiality work can continue while the central damages proceeding is paused.
Why Perpetual Software Resale Is at Stake
In 2012, the UsedSoft v Oracle judgment limited Oracle’s attempt to prevent resale of downloaded software licences. EU judges established exhaustion for downloaded perpetual copies, but the Microsoft dispute concerns how rights are packaged inside volume arrangements.
Rob Bratby, managing partner at Bratby Law, cautioned against treating the appeal as a simple verdict on exhaustion:
“The interest in the decision lies less in the exhaustion doctrine than in the treatment of the copyright defence.”
Rob Bratby, managing partner at Bratby Law (via Bratby Law)
A single copy licensed for many users is not necessarily divisible. Independent copies or licences in a genuine volume arrangement may support separate transfers. Buyers and resellers must document that a seller stopped using each transferred copy, tying the legal distinction to procurement records, licence configuration and saleable inventory.
Microsoft’s next procedural test is whether it files for and obtains permission to appeal. ValueLicensing expects the tribunal to consider its two active applications at a September 2026 case-management conference.
