Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing v Microsoft (CoA, 24 November 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 24 November 2025, the standing judge of the Court of Appeal rejects Suinno’s application for suspensive effect, made together with its application for leave to appeal the Paris Central Division’s decision of 6 November 2025 fixing the costs payable to Microsoft under Rule 151 at €350,000 (EP 2 671 173). The order confirms that an appeal against a costs decision has no suspensive effect and that a bare assertion that enforcement would be unreasonable does not justify an exception.

Question

Should an appeal against a costs decision be given suspensive effect where the appellant argues that enforcement would be unreasonable and relies on a costs claim that could be set off?

Decision

The application is admissible, as Suinno applied for leave to appeal and paid the fee (paragraphs 9 to 12). On the merits, an appeal has no suspensive effect unless the Court decides otherwise on a reasoned request (Art. 74(1) UPCA, Rule 223.2) (paragraph 13). Suspensive effect is granted only where exceptional circumstances justify it, after weighing the parties’ interests, for example where the decision is manifestly erroneous or the appeal would otherwise become devoid of purpose (paragraph 14). The applicant bears the burden of proof (paragraph 15). Whether the reasons contain errors or contradictions is a matter for the appeal itself, if leave is granted (paragraph 16), Suinno merely asserts that enforcement would be unreasonable and shows no manifest error (paragraph 17). Microsoft was not heard, since the decision had to be taken without delay and went in its favour (Rule 223.3) (paragraph 18).

Key points for practice

• An application for suspensive effect against a costs decision must show a manifest error or a risk that the appeal becomes devoid of purpose. Relying on a future set-off against a costs claim is not enough.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 74(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 151, 157, 221, 223, 224.1 and 228

Case law cited

Chint v Jingao, Court of Appeal, 20 May 2025, Sun Patent Trust v Vivo, Court of Appeal, 15 August 2025.

Related decisions

• Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing v Microsoft, 24 December 2025, order refusing leave to appeal the costs decision.

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.