Opens in a new tab

Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing v Microsoft (CFI, 24 January 2025)

Date24 January 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionParis (FR) Central Division - Seat
Type of actionApplication RoP262.1 (b)
Case number(s)App_67889/2024
Registry referenceApp_67889/2024
PartiesInstitute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office
LanguageEnglish

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 24 January 2025 (dated 2024 in the text by mistake), the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Central Division (Judge Catallozzi) rejected the request of the Institute of Professional Representatives before the EPO (epi) for access to the pleadings and evidence in the infringement action Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing v Microsoft (UPC_CFI_164/2024, EP 2 671 173). An interest in a general legal question, here representation by in-house European patent attorneys, was not enough.

Question

May a professional body obtain access to a case file to follow a legal question, the right of in-house European patent attorneys to represent parties, pending on appeal?

Decision

The judge restated the principle of open proceedings (Art. 10(1) and Art. 45 UPCA) and the balancing required by the Court of Appeal (paragraphs 1 to 4), the applicant must state the purpose of the request and why access is necessary (paragraph 5). The interest of epi members, affected by the pending appeal, was acknowledged (paragraphs 7 and 8), but an interest in a legal issue does not justify access where the integrity of the proceedings is at stake (paragraphs 9 and 10). The question, general and purely legal, could not be met through the file. The arguments already appear in earlier orders and the Court of Appeal’s ruling was imminent (paragraphs 11 to 13). The parties had left the matter to the Court.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 10(1) and Art. 45
Rules of Procedure
Rule 262.1(b)
Case law cited
Court of Appeal, 10 April 2024 (Ocado Innovation v Autostore), Paris Central Division, 23 September 2024 (UPC_CFI_189/2024), Nordic-Baltic Regional Division, 17 September 2024 (UPC_CFI_8/2023), Vienna Local Division, 12 August 2024 (UPC_CFI_33/2024)

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.


Going further

Lexicon: Unitary patent, Local and central divisions (UPC).

Dhenne Avocats blog: The Transitional Period and the UPC: Coordinating Two Judicial Orders.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Four Questions That Decide a UPC Market Entry, Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).

Source and translations

Official source
Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language
English from the language of proceedings
Translation available
no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked
not recorded
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

  • APP_67889/2024 official number

Follow this case

Parties

  • claimantInstitute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent OfficeFollow this party
Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Application RoP262.1 (b)
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
Le juge rapporteur rejette la demande d'accès de l'epi, l'intérêt pour une question de droit générale ne l'emportant pas sur l'intégrité de la procédure.
Appeal
No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance
First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 2 671 173
Method and means for browsing by walking
recorded proprietor: Suinno Oy
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 27 other decision(s): Microsoft v Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing (CFI, 7 January · Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing v Microsoft (CoA, 22 May 202 · Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing v Microsoft (CoA, 28 April 2 · Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing v Microsoft (CoA, 7 April 20 · Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing v Microsoft (CoA, 24 Februar · Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing v Microsoft (CoA, 24 Decembe · Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing v Microsoft (CoA, 24 Novembe · Microsoft v Suinno Mobile & AI Licensing (CFI, 8 September 2025)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · European Patent Register
existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically)
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.