https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Comp....

So according to Wikipedia there is a specific statute that expressly disavows the notion that someone who bought a copy of a computer program would infringe by running it (17 USC 117), the court found that a repair tech wasn't the owner of the copy so the statute didn't apply, and Congress immediately passed another law reversing the effect of the court's decision.

I guess that's technically what I asked for, but I don't think pointing out the existence of that statute does much for the argument that you need a separate license to run a computer program you paid for.

Let's try this again: Can you cite a relevant case that hasn't subsequently been invalidated?