Microsoft v Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing (CFI, 27 December 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 27 December 2024 (UPC_CFI_164/2024, ORD_63208/2024), the Paris Central Division (Judge Catallozzi presiding and acting as judge-rapporteur) rejected Microsoft’s request to raise to at least EUR 500,000 the security for costs of EUR 300,000 already imposed on Suinno in the action for infringement of EP 2 671 173. The order sets a demanding threshold for increasing security: the ordinary progress of the written procedure is not enough.

Question

Do the progress of the written procedure, the claimant’s financial difficulties and an increase in its damages claim justify raising security for costs already ordered?

Decision

No. Rule 158 allows security to be varied where the reasons for it have ceased or changed. The applicant must put forward credible reasons (paragraphs 6 to 11). The ordinary course of the written procedure is not a new circumstance, as its costs were factored in when security was first set, and no unforeseeable exceptional costs were alleged (paragraphs 13 to 15). Suinno’s financial difficulties had already grounded the original security (paragraph 16). The value of the proceedings is assessed when the action is filed (Rule 370.6), the damages claim had in any event been reduced to EUR 2 million (paragraphs 17 and 18).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: an application to increase security must rest on a specific later event, such as unforeseeable exceptional costs, not merely on the progress of the case.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 158, 220 and 370.6

Case law cited

NanoString Europe, Munich Central Division, 17 December 2024 (UPC_CFI_252/2023), Court of Appeal, AUDI AG v Network System, 17 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_217/2024)

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.