Recommended Free Tools
IBM won its mainframe software lawsuit against LzLabs GmbH, Winsopia Limited and John Jay Moores. In a 10 March 2025 liability judgment, the High Court found that Winsopia breached its IBM Customer Agreement, that LzLabs GmbH and Moores unlawfully procured that breach, and that the three were liable for unlawful-means conspiracy. The court also held that IBM had validly terminated the agreement and associated agreements. Claims against LzLabs Limited and individuals Mark Cresswell and Thilo Rockmann were dismissed.
Calling the case “intellectual property theft” is shorthand, not the court’s formal finding. The liability ruling concerned contract and tort claims; the materials identified here do not establish a separate copyright-infringement finding or a criminal theft conviction.
What was the dispute about?
IBM UK sued LzLabs GmbH, Winsopia Limited, LzLabs Limited and three individuals in the High Court’s Technology and Construction Court. Winsopia held an IBM software licence agreement, known as the IBM Customer Agreement (ICA). The dispute centered on allegations that IBM programs were disassembled and elements used in developing LzLabs’ Software Defined Mainframe (SDM).
In its 4 July 2025 reasons refusing permission to appeal, the Court of Appeal described the SDM’s intended purpose as enabling IBM mainframe customers to run existing applications without IBM mainframe hardware or software. The appellate court also summarized the High Court judge’s findings that the appellants took IBM Programs apart and used elements of them to build the SDM.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →#1 Best Overall
Which defendants did IBM win against?
The High Court’s 10 March 2025 liability judgment separated the defendants’ outcomes. The consequential judgment, dated 24 April 2025, summarized the findings and dealt with remedies.
| Defendant | Outcome at the liability stage | Findings |
|---|---|---|
| Winsopia Limited | IBM succeeded | Breached the ICA; liable for unlawful-means conspiracy. The court held IBM validly terminated the ICA and associated agreements. (High Court, [2025] EWHC 532 (TCC); consequential judgment, [2025] EWHC 998 (TCC).) |
| LzLabs GmbH | IBM succeeded | Unlawfully procured Winsopia’s breach of the ICA; liable for unlawful-means conspiracy. ([2025] EWHC 998 (TCC).) |
| John Jay Moores | IBM succeeded | Unlawfully procured Winsopia’s breach of the ICA; liable for unlawful-means conspiracy. ([2025] EWHC 998 (TCC).) |
| LzLabs Limited | Claims dismissed | The High Court did not find this defendant liable on IBM’s claims. ([2025] EWHC 532 (TCC).) |
| Mark Cresswell and Thilo Rockmann | Claims dismissed | The High Court did not find these defendants liable on IBM’s claims. ([2025] EWHC 532 (TCC).) |
What remedies did the High Court order?
In its 24 April 2025 consequential judgment, the High Court addressed injunctive relief and ordered delivery up and destruction of the ICA Programs at issue, with a stated deadline of 16 July 2025. The Court of Appeal’s later account of the consequential judgment also described a £20 million payment on account of costs. The available case information does not establish whether the delivery-up and destruction steps were completed.
Rank #2
- Murach's Mainframe COBOL
- Mike Murach & Associates
- ABIS BOOK
Could LzLabs appeal?
On 4 July 2025, the Court of Appeal refused LzLabs GmbH, Winsopia and Moores permission to appeal. That was a refusal of permission, rather than an appeal hearing deciding the liability issues afresh. The appellate reasons said the High Court’s findings were too fact-specific and detailed to justify permission on the grounds advanced. Lord Justice Coulson wrote: “There are no free-standing points of principle that the judge got even arguably wrong.”
The Court of Appeal noted that the trial had lasted 33 days after five reading days. A later High Court ruling, [2025] EWHC 3164 (TCC), dated 28 November 2025, concerned a request for a private hearing involving confidential information and personal financial matters. It was procedural, not a new decision on liability.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →What “intellectual property theft” means in this case
IBM’s case concerned the alleged disassembly and use of elements of its programs, but the outcome should be described using the legal claims the court actually decided: breach of contract, procuring breach of contract and unlawful-means conspiracy. On the records identified here, “theft” is not a criminal conviction, and the liability judgment is not established as a separate finding of copyright infringement. The distinction matters: a headline phrase should not be mistaken for a court’s cause of action or a criminal verdict.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
