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

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

The standing judge of the Court of Appeal refuses Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy leave to appeal the decision of 6 November 2025 in which the Paris Central Division (UPC_CFI_724/2025) set at EUR 350,000 the costs owed to Microsoft Corporation for the infringement action concerning EP 2 671 173 and the related appeals. Suinno sought a reduction to EUR 137,815.80. The order restates the limited review the Court of Appeal exercises over the judge-rapporteur’s assessment of costs.

Question

Does an award of EUR 350,000 in recoverable costs, for an action valued at EUR 5,000,000 and ended early by a decision by default, warrant leave to appeal under Rule 221 RoP?

Decision

As the judge-rapporteur will typically have managed the case at each stage, review on appeal is limited to whether the successful party is compensated beyond what is reasonable and proportionate or whether the principles of Art. 69(1) UPCA are otherwise departed from (paragraph 7). Given the EUR 600,000 ceiling applicable to a value of EUR 5,000,000, the amount awarded is proportionate (paragraph 9), and Suinno fails to show that the costs exceeded what was necessary for the defence (paragraph 10). The judge-rapporteur had also disallowed costs supported only by redacted invoices and those of a file inspection request, and took account of the early end of the proceedings (paragraph 11). The pending applications for rehearing are irrelevant (paragraph 12). Leave is refused.

Key points for practice

• Challenging a costs award on appeal requires showing clear over-compensation or an error of principle, not mere disagreement with the assessment (paragraphs 7 and 10).
• Costs evidenced only by redacted invoices may be disallowed when costs are assessed (paragraph 11).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 150, 151, 152, 156.2, 221, 223 and 370.6

Case law cited

Tiroler Rohre v SSAB, Court of Appeal, 3 July 2025, UPC_CoA_153/2025.

Related decisions

• Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing v Microsoft, 24 November 2025, order dismissing the request for suspensive effect (Rule 223 RoP).

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.