Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing v Microsoft (CFI, 27 December 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 27 December 2024 (UPC_CFI_164/2024, ORD_62910/2024), the Paris Central Division (Judge Catallozzi presiding and acting as judge-rapporteur) rejected Suinno’s request to reduce from EUR 300,000 to EUR 100,000 the security for costs ordered on 27 September 2024 (ORD_45914/2024) in its action for infringement of EP 2 671 173 against Microsoft. On the same day the same panel also refused Microsoft’s request to increase that security. Reducing the damages claimed changes neither the value of the proceedings nor, therefore, the security.

Question

Does a reduction of the damages claimed, permitted during the proceedings, justify reducing security for costs?

Decision

No. The application, made under Rule 333, was examined on its correct basis, Rule 158, which allows security to be varied where its reasons have ceased or changed (paragraphs 6, 7 and 12). Security had been set at 50% of the recoverable costs ceiling, on the value of the proceedings stated by the claimant (paragraph 15). That value reflects the claimant’s objective interest when the action is filed (Rule 370.6), so the later reduction of damages is immaterial (paragraph 16). Criticism of the proportionality of the original order is a matter for appeal (paragraphs 11 and 18).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: the amount of security is challenged by appeal under Rule 220, an application to vary succeeds only on a relevant change of circumstances.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 158, 220, 263, 333 and 370.6

Case law cited

NanoString Europe, Munich Central Division, 17 December 2024 (UPC_CFI_252/2023), Court of Appeal, AUDI AG v Network System, 17 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_217/2024)

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.