UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 433/2024

Jul 25, 2024·EP2671173 · METHOD AND MEANS FOR BROWSING BY WALKING

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent revoked)
Action
Counterclaim for revocation
Category
Counterclaim for revocation
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Paris CD
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Telecommunications · Digital communication · Computer technology
Language
English
First decided
Jan 7, 2026
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Patent revokedMedian days to first decision
All UPC37% (34/91)124
Paris CDLockedLocked
Judge Paolo CatallozziLockedLocked
Judge Tatyana ZhilovaLockedLocked
Judge Wiem SamoudLockedLocked

At the UPC: Microsoft Group (34 cases)·Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy (29 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 26 other proceedings

UPC CoA 51/2026·UPC CoA 21/2026·UPC CFI 544/2026·UPC CoA 911/2025·UPC CoA 883/2025 and 21 more

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Paris CD·2024

Decisions
  • 2026-01-07
    Counterclaim for revocationPublic

    Summary: Decision of the Paris Central Division (Panel 2) dated 7 January 2026 on Microsoft Corporation's counterclaim for revocation of EP 2 671 173 (mobile location-based search technology) owned by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy. The court found the patent invalid for lack of inventive step over prior art documents BP07 and BP08. Auxiliary Requests I through further auxiliary requests were examined: Auxiliary Request I was found inadmissible or failed on added subject-matter; subsequent auxiliary requests lacked clarity or were inadmissible. The patent was thus revoked. The decision also addresses the requirements for admissible patent amendment applications under R. 30 RoP.

    Show the legal issues (4)
    • Inventive step assessment
    • Application to amend the patent – admissibility requirements under R. 30 RoP
    • Added subject-matter under Art. 123(2) EPC
    • Clarity of auxiliary requests
Documents
Show all 239 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Receipt2026-06-12Not public
Cover sheet2026-06-12Not public
Application document Applicant2026-06-12Not public
Exhibit Applicant2026-06-12Not public
Application document Applicant2026-06-12Not public
Case closed2026-03-31Not public
Receipt2026-02-09Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-09Not public
Application document Applicant2026-02-09Not public
Application document Applicant2026-02-09Not public
Plain-English summary

Microsoft Corporation filed a counterclaim for revocation of Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy's EP 2 671 173 (location-based mobile search / browsing by walking) at the Paris Central Division. The court found claim 1 invalid for added subject-matter (Art. 123(2) EPC) and independently for lack of inventive step over BP07 combined with BP08; all auxiliary requests either failed to remedy the defects or were inadmissible for non-compliance with R. 30 RoP because the scope of proposed amendments was insufficiently clear for the court to understand without subjective reconstruction.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Claim 1 as granted lacks inventive step over EP 2 264 662 A1 (BP07) combined with US 2006/0253409 (BP08)

    Claimant

    Note: BP07 discloses all features of claim 1 except the local area receiver and short-range search; BP08 teaches exactly that combination to solve the objective technical problem of increasing location-contextual relevance of search results.

  • Auxiliary Requests II–XVII are inadmissible for failure to comply with R. 30(1) RoP (unclear scope of proposed amendments)

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 30(1) RoP

    Note: Court found the proposed amendments left the court unable to unambiguously understand the scope of the claims without subjective reconstruction.

  • Patent as granted also contains added subject-matter in claim 1 (features 1.2 and 1.4)

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 123(2) EPC

    Note: Court found the patent invalid for added subject-matter; Auxiliary Request I failed to remedy this defect.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Auxiliary Requests I–XVII save the patent from the invalidity attacks

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 30(1) RoP; Art. 123(2) EPC

    Reason: Auxiliary Request I did not remedy the added-matter defect; Requests II–XVII were inadmissible for failure to submit full sets of claims enabling unambiguous understanding of the proposed amendments.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Problem-solution approach: objective technical problem must be identified from the distinguishing features before assessing obviousnessPatent amendment application must comply with R. 30 RoP (filing deadline, at least one amendment, official language, clarity, full claim set for substantive amendments)Court cannot assist parties in drafting amendments; amendments must be immediately intelligible without subjective reconstructionRequirements of R. 30(1) that are objective (deadline, language, inclusion of amendments) cause inadmissibility if not met; those that are discretionary (clarity, number, explanation) may lead to non-examinationAdded subject-matter assessed under Art. 123(2) EPC: features 1.2 and 1.4 not directly and unambiguously derivable from application as filed

Browse other cases on this principle.

Prior art relied on
References cited and the role they played.
  • EP 2 264 662 A1 (BP07)Obviousness combination
  • US 2006/0253409 (BP08)Obviousness combination
  • WO 2012/104474 (application as filed of EP 2 671 173)Background
Claim construction notes

The court construed claim 1 of EP 2 671 173 (method for browsing by walking) around features including a mobile station configured to receive information pages via short-range communication links and to search received pages (features 1.5-1.6). The court found these distinguishing features over BP07 are taught by BP08 to solve the problem of increasing location-contextual relevance of search results.