Suinno Mobile & AI Licensing v Microsoft (CFI, 26 June 2024)
| Date | 26 June 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
| Type of action | Application RoP262A |
| Registry reference | App_19084/2024 · ORD_27206/2024 |
| Parties | Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v. Microsoft Corporation |
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 an order of 26 June 2024 (UPC_CFI_164/2024, ACT_18406/2024, ORD_27206/2024, App_19084/2024), the judge-rapporteur of panel 2 of the Paris Central Division (P. Catallozzi), in Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy’s infringement action on EP 2 671 173 against Microsoft Corporation, restricted access to two licence agreements filed by the claimant to those Microsoft attorneys and directors with a legitimate need to see them for the purposes of the proceedings. Suinno had asked that the agreements be kept secret from the defendant itself.
Question
Is the confidentiality application admissible despite the objection that the claimant’s representative lacks independence, and should the defendant’s access to the licence agreements be restricted?
Decision
The objection is rejected: the duty of independence under Art. 2.4.1 of the Code of Conduct protects the represented party’s right of defence, so the representative’s status as inventor or former officer, or his interest, is not decisive, and only the protected party may invoke it (paragraphs 7 to 10), no abuse of procedure is shown (paragraph 11). On the merits, the court weighs confidentiality against the right to a proper defence. The application may be granted where the applicant’s reasons significantly outweigh the opposing interest (paragraph 14). Trade secret status is not contested and the alleged earlier disclosure is not proven (paragraphs 15, 18 and 19). Suinno’s interest in secrecy is clear, whereas Microsoft shows no specific interest in wider access (paragraphs 20 and 21), the restriction is proportionate (paragraph 23).
Key points for practice
- Practical point: licence agreements filed as evidence may be limited to the other side’s attorneys and certain directors where that party shows no specific interest in wider access.
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Art. 58
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 262A and 290.2
- Other provisions
- Code of Conduct for Representatives, Art. 2.4.1, Directive (EU) 2016/943, Commission Communication 2020/C 242/01
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
- claimantSuinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy23 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantMicrosoft 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 deux accords de licence est réservé aux avocats et dirigeants de Microsoft qui en ont un besoin légitime pour l'instance. L'objection tirée du défaut d'indépendance du représentant de Suinno est écartée.
- 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
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.