Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing v Microsoft (CFI, 2 July 2024)
| Date | 2 July 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
| Type of action | Generic application |
| Registry reference | App_28103/2024 · ORD_33379/2024 |
| Parties | Microsoft 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.
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
- Practical point: a defendant cannot challenge admissibility on the ground that the other side’s representative lacks independence, since that duty protects only the represented party.
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
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
Parties
- claimantMicrosoft Corporation31 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
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
EP 2 671 173mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Patents and standards
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.