Opens in a new tab

Suinno Mobile & AI Licensing v Microsoft (CFI, 26 June 2024)

Date26 June 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionParis (FR) Central Division - Seat
Type of actionApplication RoP262A
Registry referenceApp_19084/2024 · ORD_27206/2024
PartiesSuinno 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.

Contact the firm

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

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
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 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

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 Licensing (CFI, 8 September 2025)
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.