Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing v Microsoft (CFI, 17 September 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 16 September 2024 (ORD_43015/2024, UPC_CFI_164/2024), the Paris Central Division rejected Microsoft’s request for a panel review of the judge-rapporteur’s order of 2 July 2024, which had refused to dismiss as manifestly inadmissible the action for infringement of EP 2 671 173 brought by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing. It also refused leave to appeal. The order sets a high threshold under Rule 361 RoP: inadmissibility must be clear from the pleadings without in-depth analysis.

Question

Is an action manifestly inadmissible under Rule 361 RoP where the claimant’s representative is also its director and main shareholder, or where the statement of claim does not quantify the damages sought?

Decision

No. The review was admissible only insofar as it concerned the Rule 361 order, any challenge to the claimant’s Rule 262A application requiring a separate appeal (paragraphs 7 to 11). Manifest inadmissibility must be evident from the pleadings, without debatable legal assessment (paragraphs 12 to 15). CJEU case law on Article 19 of its Statute does not bind the UPC, and its relationship with Art. 48(5) UPCA requires in-depth analysis, so the alleged lack of independence was not manifest (paragraphs 16 to 22). The request to determine and award past damages was sufficiently clear, and the absence of an amount did not breach Rule 13.1(k) RoP (paragraphs 23 to 26). Leave to appeal was refused, as the issues can be dealt with later in the proceedings (paragraph 28).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: Rule 361 RoP cannot be used to obtain an early ruling on a contested point such as the independence of a party’s representative, that point has to be argued in the main proceedings.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 48(5)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 13.1(k), 262A, 290.2, 333 and 361

Case law cited

Microsoft v Suinno, Court of Appeal, 21 August 2024, CJEU, 14 July 2022, C-110/21 P, Universität Bremen v REA, and other judgments on representation before the CJEU.

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.