Form vs. Function: A New IPEC Copyright Ruling – Patent

More

Marks & Clerk is one of the UK’s foremost firms of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys. Our attorneys and solicitors are wired directly into the UK’s leading business and innovation economies. Alongside this we have offices in 9 international locations covering the EU, Canada and Asia, meaning we offer clients the best possible service locally, nationally and internationally.

Just because two platforms exhibit the same functionality, doesn’t mean copyright has been infringed. That is the clear message from the recent decision in Edozo Ltd v Valos (UK) Ltd [2026] EWHC 93 (IPEC).

United Kingdom
Intellectual Property

To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Just because two platforms exhibit the same functionality,
doesn’t mean copyright has been infringed. That is the clear
message from the recent decision in Edozo Ltd v Valos (UK)
Ltd [2026] EWHC 93 (IPEC). 

The court struck out a counterclaim which argued that by
replicating a specific sequence of steps in a user interface, a
competitor had indirectly infringed the copyright in the underlying
source code. 

The judge in this case referred to a “pudding” analogy
to make the point: just because two puddings look and taste
identical to the customer (referring to user experience of the
interface), doesn’t mean one chef infringed the copyright in
the other’s written recipe (referring to the source code that
produces the user experience). 

The point made by this analogy, therefore, is that, with respect
to copyright in software, functionality is distinct from
expression. You can largely replicate a competitor’s business
logic or user flow without infringing the literary copyright of
their computer program, provided you do not rely on the
competitor’s own source code to replicate it. 

This case highlights the difference between copyright, which in
the UK protects individual expressions, and patents which protect
general concepts and ideas. Many companies overlook this difference
and don’t consider the value a patent can provide to protect
their software, which is a mistake. 

A well-rounded intellectual property (IP) strategy for
companies, particularly for those operating in the software space
(as demonstrated in this case), must therefore consider all
available forms of IP, not just copyright, and must consider the
differences between the different forms. 

N.B. this article is not legal advice. 

The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]