Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing v Microsoft (CoA, 11 February 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 11 February 2025 (UPC_CoA_563/2024), the Court of Appeal dismissed Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing’s appeal against the Paris Central Division’s order of 16 September 2024 declaring inadmissible its confidentiality application under Rule 262A RoP against Microsoft. Suinno’s representative, a qualified European Patent Attorney, was also its managing director and main shareholder. The Court held that no corporate representative of a legal person, and no natural person with extensive administrative and financial powers within it, may represent that legal person before the UPC, even if qualified under Art. 48(1) or (2) UPCA. It added that being employed by the party does not in itself undermine the required independence. The order draws the line between the in-house representative, who is permitted, and the managing representative, who is not.

Facts and procedure

Suinno, proprietor of EP 2 671 173, brought an infringement action against Microsoft before the Paris Central Division and asked that certain documents be kept confidential from the public and from Microsoft (paragraph 4). On 26 June 2024 the judge-rapporteur held the application admissible, dismissed the independence objection and restricted access to certain Microsoft attorneys and directors (paragraph 5). On Microsoft’s request for panel review under Rule 333 RoP, the panel set that order aside on 16 September 2024, declared the application inadmissible, ordered disclosure under confidentiality to identified persons and granted leave to appeal (paragraphs 6 and 7). The appeal hearing took place on 29 January 2025.

The applicable law

Art. 48 UPCA requires parties to be represented by a lawyer or a qualified European Patent Attorney and requires representatives to exercise their duties independently (Art. 48(5)). The Code of Conduct for representatives, applicable through Rule 290.2 RoP, requires an employed representative to act as an independent counsellor. The Court also draws on the case law of the Court of Justice on Art. 19 of its Statute, without considering itself bound by it.

Question

May the managing director and main shareholder of a company, qualified as a European Patent Attorney, represent that company before the UPC?

Decision

No. The representation requirement applies to natural and legal persons alike, and is intended among other things to ensure that a legal person is defended by a representative sufficiently distant from it (paragraphs 20 to 22). This reading is consistent with the interpretation of Art. 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice (paragraphs 23 to 29), and the resulting restriction on access to justice is justified by the interests of justice (paragraph 30). Employment does not by itself undermine independence (paragraphs 31 to 33), the Code of Conduct applies to all representatives, and recusal or exclusion remains available where independence is at risk (paragraphs 34 to 39). The UPC, not being an EU court, interprets Art. 48(5) UPCA autonomously and does not follow the Court of Justice’s stricter approach to employed lawyers (paragraphs 40 to 44). Suinno’s representative, as managing director and main shareholder, could therefore not file the application (paragraphs 45 to 47). New facts raised on appeal were disregarded and would not have changed the outcome anyway (paragraphs 48 to 51). The request to move the filing date was new and inadmissible (paragraph 53), reimbursement of court fees is not provided for (paragraph 54), and costs are left to the Court of First Instance (paragraph 55).

Key points for practice

• A manager or shareholder with extensive administrative and financial powers cannot represent the company, even if qualified under Art. 48 UPCA.
• An in-house lawyer or patent attorney employed by the party may act for it, provided they act as an independent counsellor within the meaning of the Code of Conduct.
• Whether Suinno’s representative may act in the infringement action itself is left to the Court of First Instance (paragraph 56).
• Practical point: a company whose director is himself qualified should instruct an external representative, or an employee without management powers, from the outset, or risk having its applications held inadmissible.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 32(1) and 48

Rules of Procedure

Rules 8.1, 9.3, 36, 222.1, 222.2, 262A, 287.2, 288.1, 290.2, 291 and 333

European Patent Convention

Art. 134

Other provisions

Code of Conduct for representatives before the UPC, Art. 2.4.1, Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, Art. 19

Case law cited

Ocado v Autostore, Court of Appeal, 8 February 2024 (UPC_CoA_404/2023), Juul v Njoy, Court of Appeal, 3 April 2024 (UPC_CoA_433/2023), Oppo v Panasonic, Court of Appeal, 24 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_298/2024).

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.