3 cases · page 1 of 1
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed Microsoft's applications for a stay of proceedings and security for costs in appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_21/2026) concerning the revocation of EP 2 671 173. The court held that under Art. 69(4) UPCA, only the respondent in appeal proceedings is entitled to request security for costs, and ordered Suinno to provide security of EUR 600,000 within three weeks, while rejecting Microsoft's requests for a stay of proceedings.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation (UPC_CoA_21/2026)
Suinno, proprietor of EP 2 671 173, appealed a decision of the Paris Central Division revoking its patent following a counterclaim by Microsoft. After the Court of Appeal ordered Suinno to provide EUR 600,000 in security for costs, Suinno applied to revoke that order, sought a time extension, and requested a preliminary ruling from the CJEU. The Court of Appeal rejected all of Suinno's applications, holding that Article 69(4) UPCA is not limited to the cases in Articles 59–62, that the security order was justified, and that a CJEU referral was unwarranted.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision by default against Suinno, the appellant and patent proprietor, for its failure to provide security for costs (EUR 600,000) ordered in the appeal proceedings concerning the revocation of EP 2 671 173. The Court held that R. 355.2 RoP does not apply when a default decision is requested against the appellant, as the appellant is regarded as the claimant in appeal proceedings. The appeal was dismissed and Suinno was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.