Microsoft v Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing (CoA, 15 October 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 15 October 2024 (UPC_CoA_570/2024), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal dismissed Microsoft’s request for discretionary review of the Paris Central Division’s order of 16 September 2024. On panel review under Rule 333 RoP, that order had declined to reject as manifestly inadmissible under Rule 361 RoP Suinno’s infringement action on EP 2 671 173, Microsoft alleging that Suinno’s representative lacked independence. The order confirms that Rule 361 is reserved for clear-cut cases and that discretionary review is not a means of re-arguing an issue already pending on appeal.

Question

Is discretionary review warranted where the applicant disputes the Division’s assessment, within Rule 361 RoP, of the independence of the opposing party’s representative?

Decision

The manifest inadmissibility test of Rule 361 RoP is reserved for clear-cut cases that need neither a full exchange of arguments and evidence nor in-depth analysis (paragraphs 16 and 17). Microsoft did not show that review was needed for the consistent application of the Rules. Its disagreement with the reading of Article 48(5) UPCA, Rules 8.1 and 290.2 RoP and Article 2.4.1 of the Code of Conduct for representatives was not enough, the more so as the independence issue is before the Court in an appeal under Rule 220.2 RoP (paragraph 18). The impugned order does not conflict with the order issued the same day on independence outside the Rule 361 framework (paragraph 19).

Key points for practice

• A representative’s lack of independence justifies rejection by order under Rule 361 RoP only if it is obvious without detailed argument (paragraph 17).
• Practical point: discretionary review serves no purpose where the same issue is already before the Court of Appeal by another route (paragraph 18).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 48(5)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 8.1, 220.2, 220.3, 290.2, 333 and 361

Other provisions

Code of Conduct for Representatives before the UPC, Art. 2.4.1

Case law cited

Microsoft v Suinno, Court of Appeal (standing judge), 21 August 2024, Paris Central Division, 2 July 2024, ORD_33379/2024, Paris Central Division, 16 September 2024, ORD_41174/2024

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.