Form vs. Function: A New IPEC Copyright Ruling

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. 

[I]t is hard to see why Valos is worse off than a chef who has created a magnificent new pudding

caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/...