UPC CoA 21/2026

Vor dem UPC: Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy (29 Verfahren)·Microsoft Group (34 Verfahren)

• 2026-05-22
  Appeal RoP220.1Öffentlich

  Zusammenfassung: 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 anzeigen (5)

  • 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 appellant
  • Appellant treated as claimant for purposes of R. 355.2 RoP in appeal proceedings
  • Balance of interests and fairness in ordering decision by default
  • Consequences of non-compliance with security for costs order
• 2026-04-28
  Öffentlich

  Zusammenfassung: 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 anzeigen (7)

  • 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 costs
  • Compatibility 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 Agreement
  • Referral to the CJEU under Art. 267 TFEU
  • Extension of time period for providing security (R. 9.3 RoP)
• 2026-04-07
  Öffentlich

  Zusammenfassung: 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 anzeigen (7)

  • security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA and R. 158 RoP
  • admissibility of security for costs request by respondent in appeal proceedings
  • inadmissibility of security for costs request regarding costs already awarded at CFI
  • stay of proceedings under R. 295(m) RoP
  • admissibility of counterclaim for revocation after conclusion of infringement proceedings
  • extension of time period under R. 9.3(a) RoP
  • definition of 'applicant' under Art. 69(4) UPCA in appeal context