UPClytics
DeutschEnglish
AnmeldenRegistrieren
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CoA 21/2026

10. Feb. 2026·EP2671173 +1 more: METHOD AND MEANS FOR BROWSING BY WALKING

Verfahrensdetails
Status
Written Phase
Verfahrensart
Berufung
Kategorie
Hauptberufung
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter: Petri Eskola (Backström & Co)
Beklagte
Vertreter: Tilman Müller-Stoy (Bardehle Pagenberg)
Division
Court of Appeal
Richter
Technology
Computing & AI
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
7. Apr. 2026
Letzte Entscheidung
22. Mai 2026
Entscheidungen
  • 2026-05-22
    AbgewiesenBerufungsentscheidungAppeal RoP220.1

    The Court of Appeal issued a decision by default against Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy (the appellant) for failure to provide the ordered security for costs of EUR 600,000 within the prescribed three-week period. As a result, the appeal against the Paris Central Division's revocation of EP 2 671 173 was dismissed. Suinno was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.

    Rechtsfragen:Decision by default against appellant for failure to provide security for costs (R. 158.5 RoP, R. 355 RoP)Applicability of R. 355.2 RoP in appeal proceedings when decision by default is requested against the appellantAppellant treated as claimant for purposes of R. 355.2 RoP in appeal proceedingsBalance of interests and fairness in ordering decision by defaultConsequences of non-compliance with security for costs order
  • 2026-04-28
    Generic Order

    The Court of Appeal rejected all of Suinno's applications. The court denied Suinno's application to revoke or vary the security for costs order of EUR 600,000, declined to refer questions to the CJEU, and rejected the application for an extension of the time period for providing security.

    Rechtsfragen:Revocation of a security for costs order (R. 335, 336, 158 RoP, Art. 69(4) UPCA)Scope and requirements of Art. 69(4) UPCA for security for costsCompatibility of security for costs with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (Art. 17, 47)Compatibility of security for costs with the Enforcement Directive (2004/48/EC)Compatibility of security for costs with TRIPS AgreementReferral to the CJEU under Art. 267 TFEUExtension of time period for providing security (R. 9.3 RoP)
  • 2026-04-07
    Generic Order

    The Court of Appeal ordered Suinno to provide security for costs of EUR 600,000 to Microsoft within 3 weeks for the appeal proceedings, while rejecting Microsoft's requests for a stay of proceedings. The Court also extended the deadline for Microsoft to file its Statement of response to the grounds of appeal until 19 June 2026. Microsoft's request for security regarding costs already awarded at first instance was held inadmissible.

    Rechtsfragen:security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA and R. 158 RoPadmissibility of security for costs request by respondent in appeal proceedingsinadmissibility of security for costs request regarding costs already awarded at CFIstay of proceedings under R. 295(m) RoPadmissibility of counterclaim for revocation after conclusion of infringement proceedingsextension of time period under R. 9.3(a) RoPdefinition of 'applicant' under Art. 69(4) UPCA in appeal context
Dokumente
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
action.phaseChange.caseClose2026-05-22Nicht öffentlich
action.issueDecision.decision2026-05-22Nicht öffentlich
Decision2026-05-22Öffentlich
Receipt2026-05-21Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-05-21Nicht öffentlich
Application Appellant2026-05-21Nicht öffentlich
action.issueOrder.order2026-04-28Nicht öffentlich
Order2026-04-28Öffentlich
Receipt2026-04-24Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-04-24Nicht öffentlich
Application Appellant2026-04-24Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Appellant2026-04-24Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Appellant2026-04-24Nicht öffentlich
action.issueOrder.order2026-04-07Nicht öffentlich
Order2026-04-07Öffentlich
Receipt2026-03-30Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-03-30Nicht öffentlich
Submission Appellant2026-03-30Nicht öffentlich
action.issueOrder.order2026-03-25Nicht öffentlich
Order2026-03-25Öffentlich
Receipt2026-03-24Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-03-24Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-03-24Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-03-24Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-24Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-24Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-24Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-24Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-24Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-24Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-24Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-24Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-24Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-24Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-24Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-24Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-24Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-24Nicht öffentlich
Application Respondent2026-03-24Nicht öffentlich
Application Respondent2026-03-24Nicht öffentlich
action.issueOrder.order2026-03-18Nicht öffentlich
Order2026-03-18Öffentlich
Order2026-03-18Öffentlich
action.issueOrder.order2026-03-09Nicht öffentlich
Order2026-03-09Öffentlich
action.communication.general2026-03-05Nicht öffentlich
action.publishOrderDecision.case2026-03-05Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-03-04Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-03-04Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Appellant2026-03-04Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Appellant2026-03-04Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-03-04Nicht öffentlich
Note2026-02-27Nicht öffentlich
Formal Deficiency found2026-02-27Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-02-25Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-02-25Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Appellant2026-02-25Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-02-25Nicht öffentlich
Formal Deficiency found2026-02-17Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-02-10Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-02-10Nicht öffentlich
Fee2026-02-10Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-02-10Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit document Appellant2026-02-10Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit document Appellant2026-02-10Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit document Appellant2026-02-10Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit document Appellant2026-02-10Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit document Appellant2026-02-10Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit document Appellant2026-02-10Nicht öffentlich
Statement of Appeal2026-02-10Nicht öffentlich
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Microsoft, as respondent in the appeal, is entitled to request security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA because Suinno as appellant is the 'applicant' who initiated the appeal proceedings

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69(4) UPCA; R. 158 RoP; UPC_CoA_622/2025, Hefei v Grundfos, para. 12

  • Suinno's financial position — failure to pay EUR 350,000 in costs from infringement proceedings, admissions of lacking financial resources — gives rise to legitimate and real concern that appeal costs may not be recoverable

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69(4) UPCA; R. 158 RoP; Oerlikon v Bhagat, para. 20

  • The conclusion of the infringement proceedings does not render the counterclaim for revocation or the request for security for costs inadmissible

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 265.2 RoP

  • Extension of time to file Statement of response is justified given the uncertainty about Suinno's ability to provide security and Suinno's failure to pay prior cost orders

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 9.3(a) RoP
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • Microsoft's request for security for costs regarding costs already awarded by the CFI is inadmissible because a CFI cost decision was already issued (EUR 300,000 on 31 March 2026)

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 150 RoP et seq.; Oerlikon v Bhagat, para. 16

  • The appeal proceedings should be stayed until Suinno reimburses Microsoft for the costs of the infringement proceedings or until security is provided

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 295(m) RoP

  • Security for costs is a baseless act of chicanery because the infringement action is no longer pending

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 158.1 RoP

  • The defendant in the revocation counterclaim cannot be required to provide security for the claimant's costs

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69(4) UPCA