Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing v Microsoft (CoA, 28 April 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 28 April 2026 (UPC_CoA_21/2026), the Court of Appeal rejects the applications of Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy to revoke or vary the order of 7 April 2026 requiring it to provide EUR 600,000 as security for the costs of its appeal against the Paris Central Division decision revoking its patent EP 2 671 173 at the request of Microsoft Corporation, to extend the time limit for providing it, and to refer questions to the Court of Justice. The order confirms that a patent proprietor bringing an appeal may be required to provide security for costs and that neither EU law nor the Charter stands in the way.

Question

Does Article 69(4) UPCA allow security to be imposed on a patent proprietor appealing a revocation decision, and is that requirement compatible with Directive 2004/48, TRIPS and the Charter?

Decision

A security order under Rule 158 is a case management order that the Court may vary or revoke (paragraph 12). Article 69(4) is not confined to the measures in Articles 59 to 62 (paragraph 14), security requires a legitimate and real concern about the recovery of costs, which Suinno did not dispute (paragraph 15). Directive 2004/48 and TRIPS contain no rules on security for costs (paragraphs 16 and 17), and the Charter allows the right to effective judicial protection to be restricted to protect the rights of others (paragraph 18). Since the Charter cannot by itself found the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, a referral is ruled out (paragraphs 21 and 22). There are no grounds to extend the time limit (paragraph 23).

Key points for practice

• Arguments on the amount of security must be raised in the response to the application for security. Raised later, they are belated (paragraph 20).
• An applicant cannot normally count on the security order being revoked or varied in order to obtain more time (paragraph 23).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69(4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.3, 158, 335 and 336

Other provisions

Directive 2004/48/EC, TRIPS Agreement, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts. 17(2), 47 and 52(1), TFEU, Art. 267

Case law cited

Total Semiconductor v Texas Instruments, Court of Appeal, 14 January 2025 (UPC_CoA_651/2024), Volkswagen v Network System, Court of Appeal, 17 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_218/2024), AorticLab v Emboline, Court of Appeal, 20 June 2025 (UPC_CoA_393/2025), CJEU, 19 December 2019, Deutsche Umwelthilfe, C-752/18.

Related decisions

• Suinno Mobile & AI Licensing v Microsoft, 7 April 2026, security order whose revocation was sought.

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.