Microsoft’s appeal against the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal’s ruling to assert jurisdiction over copyright law issues in a standalone abuse lawsuit could enable defendants to scuttle collective claims by linking them to other areas of law if the tech company is successful, ValueLicensing’s chief executive has said.
Microsoft UK jurisdiction appeal could influence other antitrust lawsuits, CEO says
Click here to read the article on GCR's website
26 June 2025
Microsoft’s appeal against the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal’s ruling to assert jurisdiction over copyright law issues in a standalone abuse lawsuit could enable defendants to scuttle collective claims by linking them to other areas of law if the tech company is successful, ValueLicensing’s chief executive has said.
Yesterday, the CAT granted Microsoft permission to challenge a decision last month finding that it has jurisdiction to evaluate key disputes of copyright law in ValueLicensing’s lawsuit against the company.
In a two-page order, the tribunal noted that neither party “identified any authority which directly addresses this point” and that Microsoft’s arguments have a “reasonable prospect of success”.
ValueLicensing claims that Microsoft illegally employed anticompetitive contractual terms and discounts to stifle the supply of pre-owned Microsoft licences in the UK and across Europe.
Speaking to GCR today, ValueLicensing chief executive Jonathan Horley said Microsoft’s appeal will mark a key test for the CAT’s jurisdiction in other cases, including class actions.
Former Crown Prosecution Service barrister Alexander Wolfson has also filed a parallel collective claim against Microsoft, mirroring ValueLicensing’s allegations.
“If Microsoft is successful on either jurisdiction, or the copyright points, it kills the Wolfson action dead because their class action claim cannot be dealt with outside of the CAT”, Horley said, adding that Microsoft’s jurisdiction challenge was “not for our claim”.
In a court document specifically addressing forum, Microsoft noted Wolfson’s claim, arguing its jurisdiction appeal could be a “matter of wider importance”.
Horley noted that his company’s lawsuit will continue regardless of the Court of Appeal’s decision on the tribunal’s jurisdiction over copyright, as ValueLicensing can litigate that aspect of the case before the High Court.
However, Horley said the case could have wider ramifications if Microsoft is successful, claiming that defendants could argue that a piece of law unrelated to antitrust lies at the “heart” of a claim, allowing them to argue that the tribunal is “not the correct forum”.
Last month, ValueLicensing and Microsoft agreed in a case management conference that a preliminary issues trial should determine the scope of a key copyright doctrine central to the legality of ValueLicensing’s business, following the tech company’s open-court claim last November that the claimant is a “serial infringer” of its intellectual property rights.
ValueLicensing denies that claim that it is a serial infringer of Microsoft IP.
Counsel to Microsoft argued in May that the CAT has no jurisdiction to hear that preliminary trial, saying that fundamental issues of “pure copyright law”, which are at the very “heart” of Value Licensing’s claim, may “dispose of the proceedings entirely”.
Microsoft’s counsel also argued that allowing issues of “pure” copyright law to be ventilated in the CAT could open the tribunal to “misuse whether deliberate or otherwise”.
However, CAT chair Justin Turner KC ruled last month that it does have jurisdiction to hear the key preliminary issue surrounding copyright law, saying that the specialist tribunal can hear issues that are “adjacent to, or distinct from” narrow questions of abuse of dominance during proceedings.
Microsoft and its counsel were contacted for comment. The tech company has instructed Willkie Farr & Gallagher to appeal the jurisdiction issue.
Counsel to ValueLicensing
Ghaffari Fussell
Partners Charles Fussell and Simon Winter in London, assisted by Catherine Stockler and Harry Prebensen
Brick Court Chambers
Maya Lester KC, Max Schaefer, Andris Rudzitis and Jon Lawrence
4 Pump Court
Matthew Lavy KC
3 Paper Buildings
Mark Wilden
8 New Square
Henry Edwards
Counsel to Microsoft
CMS
Brick Court Chambers
Robert O'Donoghue KC
Monckton Chambers
Kristina Lukacova and Nikolaus Grubeck
One Essex Court
Geoffrey Hobbs KC
8 New Square
Jaani Riordan
For the jurisdiction appeal
Willkie Farr & Gallagher
Partners Boris Bronfentrinker and Elaine Whiteford in London, assisted by Charlotte Ruffell, Oliwia Siutkowska and Lara Sabel
Brick Court Chambers
Tony Singla KC and Hugo Leith
Monckton Chambers
Kristina Lukacova