Opens in a new tab

Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing v Microsoft (CFI, 2 July 2024)

Date2 July 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionParis (FR) Central Division - Seat
Type of actionGeneric application
Registry referenceApp_28103/2024 · ORD_33379/2024
PartiesMicrosoft Corporation

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 2 July 2024 (UPC_CFI_164/2024, ACT_18406/2024, ORD_33379/2024, App_28103/2024), the judge-rapporteur of panel 2 of the Paris Central Division (P. Catallozzi) rejected Microsoft Corporation’s request to declare manifestly inadmissible (Rule 361 RoP) the action brought by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy on EP 2 671 173. The order clarifies the scope of the representative’s duty of independence and who may rely on it.

Question

Is the action manifestly inadmissible where the claimant’s representative is the named inventor, the original applicant and the managing director of the successive assignees of the patent, or where the Statement of claim allegedly fails to meet Rule 13.1(k) RoP?

Decision

The duty of independence under Art. 2.4.1 of the Code of Conduct protects the represented party’s right of defence. A lack of independence is assessed by reference to the possible harm to that party’s interests (paragraphs 8 and 9). Administrative functions and a direct interest in the outcome are not decisive (paragraph 10). As the duty is instrumental, the opposing party has no interest in having a breach found (paragraph 11), and nothing justifies excluding the lawyer (paragraph 12). The Statement of claim clearly indicates the remedies sought, namely an injunction covering specific national markets, and the alleged period of infringement is sufficiently clear for the damages claim (paragraphs 15 to 17).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 48
Rules of Procedure
Rules 8.1, 13.1, 290.2, 291, 292 and 361
Other provisions
Code of Conduct for Representatives, Art. 2.4.1

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: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

Source and translations

Official source
Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language
not recorded
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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

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
Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La demande d'irrecevabilité manifeste est rejetée : la partie adverse ne peut se prévaloir du défaut d'indépendance du représentant, et le mémoire en demande est suffisamment précis.
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

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.