Microsoft v Suinno Mobile & AI Licensing (CoA, 21 August 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 21 August 2024 (UPC_CoA_454/2024) the Court of Appeal dismissed Microsoft’s request for discretionary review of the order of the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Central Division of 2 July 2024, which had refused to reject as manifestly inadmissible the infringement action brought by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing (EP 2 671 173). An order refusing a request under Rule 361 is a case management order, which must first be referred to the panel for review under Rule 333 before any appeal.

Question

Can an order of the judge-rapporteur refusing to reject an action as manifestly inadmissible or unfounded (Rule 361) be appealed directly or made the subject of a request for discretionary review?

Decision

Insofar as it sought rejection of Suinno’s confidentiality application (Rule 262A), the request was inadmissible: the impugned order dealt only with the action, that application having been implicitly decided by the order of 26 June 2024, and the Rule 220.3 time limit would in any event not have been met (paragraphs 18 and 19). As to the remainder, an appeal required leave under Rule 220.2, since Rule 363.2 concerns only orders granting a Rule 361 request (paragraphs 22 to 26). Above all, refusing such a request is a case management order within Rule 333.1, only the panel may grant a Rule 361 request (Rule 363.1), and the remedy against the judge-rapporteur’s decision is review by the panel, not a direct appeal (paragraphs 27 to 30). The request was dismissed.

Key points for practice

• A refusal by the judge-rapporteur to reject an action under Rule 361 must first be taken to the panel (Rule 333), an appeal, with leave, comes only afterwards.
• A request for discretionary review can only target a matter actually decided by the impugned order, within the Rule 220.3 time limit.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 21.1, 220.1, 220.2, 220.3, 262A, 333, 334(h), 361 and 363

Case law cited

Netgear v Huawei, Court of Appeal, 21 March 2024 (UPC_CoA_486/2023)

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.