Opens in a new tab

Microsoft v Suinno Mobile & AI Licensing (CFI, 8 September 2025)

Date8 September 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionParis (FR) Central Division - Seat
Type of actionApplication RoP262A
Registry referenceApp_35761/2025 · ORD_35853/2025
PartiesMicrosoft 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.

Contact the firm

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

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
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

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

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 2 671 173
Method and means for browsing by walking
recorded proprietor: Suinno Oy
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 27 other decision(s): Microsoft v Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing (CFI, 7 January · Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing v Microsoft (CoA, 22 May 202 · Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing v Microsoft (CoA, 28 April 2 · Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing v Microsoft (CoA, 7 April 20 · Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing v Microsoft (CoA, 24 Februar · Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing v Microsoft (CoA, 24 Decembe · Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing v Microsoft (CoA, 24 Novembe · Microsoft v Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing (CoA, 21 August
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · European Patent Register
existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically)
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.