Microsoft v Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing (CoA, 23 December 2024)

Date	23 December 2024
Court	CoA
Division	Luxembourg (LU)
Type of action	Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
Registry reference	APL_67135/2024 · ORD_67910/2024
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.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 23 December 2024 (UPC_CoA_826/2024), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal rejected Microsoft’s request for discretionary review of the Paris Central Division’s order of 26 November 2024 granting Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing leave to reduce the damages claimed in its infringement action (EP 2 671 173). An unconditional reduction of a damages claim falls under Rule 263.3 and must always be allowed. Its effect on the value of the action is a matter for the judge-rapporteur.

Question

Can a defendant obtain review on appeal of the leave granted to the claimant to reduce, unconditionally, the amount of damages claimed?

Decision

Microsoft has not shown that review is needed for the consistent application and interpretation of the Rules of Procedure (paragraphs 9 and 10). Rule 263.3 requires leave to be granted for any unconditional limitation of a claim (paragraph 11), Suinno’s reasoned application to reduce damages was rightly treated as such (paragraph 12), and the order does not go beyond Suinno’s requests (paragraph 13). The value of the action is determined by the judge-rapporteur in the interim procedure, reflecting the objective interest pursued by the filing party at the time of filing (Rules 22, 104 and 370.6) (paragraph 14). Microsoft’s rights of defence remain protected and the order is not manifestly wrong (paragraph 15).

Key points for practice

A claimant may unconditionally reduce the amount claimed during the proceedings. The defendant cannot resist this under Rule 263.3.
Any effect on the value of the action is argued before the judge-rapporteur, the value being assessed as at filing (paragraph 14).

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 22, 104, 220.3, 263.1, 263.3 and 370.6

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: UPC Court of Appeal.

Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.

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

defendantSuinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy23 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantMicrosoft Corporation31 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

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: Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Le juge de permanence rejette la demande de réexamen de Microsoft : la réduction inconditionnelle des dommages et intérêts réclamés par Suinno relevait de la règle 263.3 et devait être autorisée.
Appeal: Decision of the Court of Appeal.
Instance: Court of Appeal decision.

Patents mentioned

EP 2 671 173 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

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

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`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 Licensing (CFI, 8 September 2025)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet · 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.