Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v. Microsoft Corporation

This order, issued on 3 March 2025 by Panel 2 of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat), concerns infringement action No. ACT_18406/2024 (UPC_CFI_164/2024) brought by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy (Finland) against Microsoft Corporation (USA) regarding European patent EP 2 671 173. Microsoft had also filed a counterclaim for revocation (CC_43155/2024, UPC_CFI_433/2024).

The dispute arose from a representation issue. By order of 16 September 2024 (ORD_41174/2024), the Court of First Instance had found that the individual appointed as claimant's representative enjoyed extensive administrative and financial powers within Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy and therefore could not validly represent the company. The Court of Appeal rejected Suinno's appeal against this finding on 11 February 2025, affirming the principle that no corporate representative or natural person with extensive administrative and financial powers within a legal person may serve as its representative before the UPC, regardless of UPC representative qualifications under Art. 48(1) or (2) UPCA.

The claimant requested that the court allow the individual to continue representing it, or alternatively, grant an order to correct the representation configuration to ensure sufficient independence in patent law matters. The claimant argued that lack of independence was alleged without basis since the individual did not directly own shares or equity in the claimant. The defendant (Microsoft) requested that the infringement action be rejected as manifestly inadmissible under Rule 361 RoP, that a default decision be issued revoking the patent in the counterclaim proceedings, that the claimant bear all costs, and that leave to appeal be granted.

The court rejected the claimant's request to allow the individual to continue as representative, finding the claimant's arguments insufficient to overcome the evidentiary findings regarding the individual's extensive administrative and financial powers. The court also rejected Microsoft's requests to the extent they relied on inadmissibility due to lack of valid representation. Following the principle established by the Court of Appeal in its order of 8 February 2024 (UPC_CoA_404/2023), the court held that lack of valid representation renders written pleadings and judicial activity void but constitutes a remediable irregularity rather than grounds for inadmissibility.

The claimant's invocation of Advocate General conclusions in cases C-515/17P and C-561/17P was rejected, as those principles apply solely to the Court of Justice and EU Courts, and they concern inadmissibility rather than remediable irregularity. The court noted that the claimant had been adequately informed of the representation defect and given an appropriate opportunity to remedy it.

The panel ordered that: (1) the individual may not serve as representative of Suinno in the proceedings; (2) Suinno is granted 30 days to appoint and instruct a new representative, who must, within the same timeframe, ratify the written pleadings previously submitted by the invalid representative; and (3) all procedural deadlines are suspended during the 30-day appointment period. This solution was found consistent with principles of efficiency, expediency, fairness, and equity, avoiding duplication of procedural activity while preventing either party from gaining undue advantage.