Executive Summary
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request by Microsoft Corporation to review an order dismissing its application that Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy's infringement action was manifestly inadmissible. Microsoft argued the lack of independence of Suinno’s representative made the case clearly bound to fail under R. 361 RoP. The Court ultimately dismissed Microsoft's request, emphasizing that 'manifest inadmissibility' requires a clear-cut situation and should not be used for general disputes over legal interpretation.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The requirement under Rule 361 RoP ('manifestly inadmissible') must be reserved for clear-cut cases and should not necessitate a full exchange of arguments or in-depth analysis. The court found that Microsoft failed to demonstrate why a review was necessary, especially since the issue of representative independence is already pending appeal.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in Microsoft Corporation vs Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Moderna, Inc.vsGenevant Sciences GmbH
In this complex UPC case involving Moderna and Genevant Sciences, the Court addressed a procedural application seeking an extension of time to file responses following extensive confidentiality proceedings (R.262A). The Judge-rapporteur ruled that while extensions are generally viewed narrowly, the delay in accessing unredacted confidential information justified a limited extension for the claimants. This decision reinforces the balance between maintaining the UPC's swift procedural timeline and ensuring parties have adequate time to prepare their defense against complex claims.
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbHvsRaimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
This UPC Central Division order addresses a revocation action brought by BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH against Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH concerning EP 4 019 790. The court established the procedural framework, setting the value in dispute and confirming the schedule for the oral hearing. While no substantive ruling was made, this order confirms the parties' readiness to proceed with the revocation proceedings.
expert e-Commerce GmbHvsSeoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This UPC appellate decision addressed an appeal concerning a cost determination following the revocation of a patent. The claimant, expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH, challenged the procedural deadlines set out in the Rules of Procedure (VerfO), arguing they conflicted with the European Patent Convention (EPÜ). However, the court rejected the request for admission to appeal, concluding that the legal questions raised had already been settled by prior rulings. This case reinforces the established procedural framework within the UPC and limits the scope for seeking preliminary interpretations from the CJEU on internal UPC procedures.
HL Display ABvsBlack Sheep Retail Products B.V.
HL Display AB initiated an infringement action against Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. concerning patent EP2432351. This procedural order sets the stage for the main trial by rescheduling the oral hearing to August 22, 2025, and formally establishing the financial value of the dispute at EUR 500,000 for both sides. The parties agreed on all procedural points, including the appointment of a technical judge.
Headwater Research LLCvsSamsung Electronics GmbH a.o.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural matter concerning a pending revocation counterclaim in an infringement action involving Headwater Research LLC and Samsung Electronics. The Court allowed the Defendants to withdraw their counterclaim because no final appeal had been lodged against prior decisions, which was consented to by the Claimant. Consequently, the proceedings related to the counterclaim were closed, with both parties agreeing to bear their own costs.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.