Microsoft v Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing (CFI, 2 April 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 2 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_164/2024, ORD_68708/2024), the Paris Central Division (Judges Catallozzi, presiding and rapporteur, Zhilova and Samoud, technically qualified) rejected Microsoft Corporation’s application for a decision by default against Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing, claimant in the infringement action on EP 2 671 173, which had failed to provide security for costs within the time set. Microsoft also sought revocation of the patent in its entirety. The panel confirmed that a decision by default remains discretionary, even where the default is established.

Question

Does a claimant’s failure to provide security for costs oblige the Court to give a decision by default against it?

Decision

Failure to provide security in time allows a decision by default (Rule 158.5 RoP), but the Court is not bound to give one and retains discretion, even where the default is obvious and unexcused (paragraphs 5 and 6). A relevant factor is whether the material available at the time of default permits a sufficiently confident assessment of the merits of the non-defaulting party’s claims. The requirement in Rule 355.2 RoP also applies where the decision is sought against the claimant (paragraphs 7 and 8). An early default by a claimant may easily lead to dismissal, since a refusal would in effect reinstate its time limits (paragraph 8). Here the written pleadings did not permit a sufficiently confident assessment of validity or non-infringement, and the panel preferred a more thorough examination at the oral hearing (paragraph 9).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a defendant seeking a decision by default against a defaulting claimant must show that the file already allows validity and infringement to be assessed with sufficient confidence.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 158.5 and 355

Case law cited

Paris Central Division, 16 September 2024 (UPC_CFI_412/2023), Munich Local Division, 11 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_193/2024)

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.