Microsoft v Suinno Mobile & AI Licensing (CFI, 8 September 2025)
| Date | 8 September 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
| Type of action | Application RoP262A |
| Registry reference | App_35761/2025 · ORD_35853/2025 |
| Parties | Microsoft Corporation v. Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy |
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 order of 8 September 2025 (UPC_CFI_724/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Central Division restricted to Suinno’s managing director and representative access to the lawyers’ invoices lodged by Microsoft in the cost proceedings concerning EP 2 671 173.
Question
Can invoices sent by a law firm to its client, lodged in support of an application for a cost decision, be protected under Rule 262A RoP, and should a penalty of a fixed amount be attached to the order?
Decision
Under the three cumulative conditions set by the EU General Court, hours and fees are confidential: they reveal the client’s financial standing and strategy and the value it places on the patent (paragraphs 4 to 7). They are also confidential as regards the representatives, third parties within Article 58 UPCA, and fall within the privilege of Rule 287 RoP (paragraph 8).
Under Rule 262.5 RoP, Suinno showed no interest in wider access, its counsel and managing director being included, and there is no public interest in such data (paragraphs 10 to 13). A penalty of a fixed amount was refused, any sanction to be assessed according to the seriousness of a breach (paragraph 14).
Key points for practice
- Fee invoices lodged to recover costs may be protected under Rule 262A RoP, including in the interest of the lawyers who issued them.
- Practical point: asking that access be limited to the opponent’s counsel and one officer is usually enough, a penalty fixed in advance is rarely granted.
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Arts 58, 69 and 82(4)
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 262.1(a), 262.2, 262.3, 262.5, 262A, 287 and 354.3
- EU case law
- General Court, 28 January 2015, T‑345/12, Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission, General Court, 8 November 2011, T‑88/09, Idromacchine v Commission, General Court, 30 May 2006, T‑198/03, Bank Austria Creditanstalt v Commission
- Case law cited
- Paris Central Division, orders of 6 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_11/2025), 14 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_601/2024) and 18 June 2025 (UPC_CFI_391/2025), Mannheim Local Division, 6 August 2025 (UPC_336/2025), Milan Central Division, 5 June 2025 (UPC_477/2025), Düsseldorf Local Division, 23 December 2024 (UPC_CFI_336/2024 and UPC_CFI_605/2024) and 9 September 2024 (UPC_CFI_347/2024)
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.
Going further
Lexicon: Confidentiality club.
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
- defendantSuinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy23 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantMicrosoft Corporation31 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Application RoP262A
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- L'accès aux factures d'avocats produites par Microsoft est réservé au dirigeant et au représentant de Suinno. La demande d'astreinte d'un montant déterminé est rejetée.
- 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
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Nera Innovations v Xiaomi Communications (CFI, 5 January 2026) cites this decision
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.