UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CoA 21/2026

Feb 10, 2026·EP2671173 · METHOD AND MEANS FOR BROWSING BY WALKING

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Claim dismissed)
Action
Appeal
Category
Main appeal
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Court of Appeal
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Telecommunications · Digital communication · Computer technology
Language
English
First decided
Apr 7, 2026
Last decision
May 22, 2026
How this compares
How long the court takes to reach a first decision.
Median days to first decision
All UPC124
Judge Rian KaldenLocked
Judge Patricia RombachLocked
Judge Ingeborg SimonssonLocked
Judge Udo MatterLocked
Judge Steven KitchenLocked

At the UPC: Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy (29 cases)·Microsoft Group (34 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 CFI 544/2026·UPC CoA 911/2025·UPC CoA 883/2025·UPC CoA 892/2025 and 21 more

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Court of Appeal·2026

Decisions
  • 2026-05-22
    Appeal RoP220.1Public

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (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
    Public

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (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
    Public

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (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
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
Order2026-06-24Not public
Order2026-06-24Public
Order2026-06-12Not public
Order2026-06-12Public
Receipt2026-06-12Not public
Cover sheet2026-06-12Not public
Application Respondent2026-06-12Not public
Order2026-06-12Not public
Order2026-06-12Public
Receipt2026-06-11Not public
Cover sheet2026-06-11Not public
Application Respondent2026-06-11Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-06-11Not public
Application Respondent2026-06-11Not public
Case closed2026-05-22Not public
Decision2026-05-22Not public
Decision2026-05-22Public
Receipt2026-05-21Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-21Not public
Application Appellant2026-05-21Not public
Order2026-04-28Not public
Order2026-04-28Public
Receipt2026-04-24Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-24Not public
Application Appellant2026-04-24Not public
Exhibit Appellant2026-04-24Not public
Exhibit Appellant2026-04-24Not public
Order2026-04-07Not public
Order2026-04-07Public
Receipt2026-03-30Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-30Not public
Submission Appellant2026-03-30Not public
Order2026-03-25Not public
Order2026-03-25Public
Receipt2026-03-24Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-24Not public
Receipt2026-03-24Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-24Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-24Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-24Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-24Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-24Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-24Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-24Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-24Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-24Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-24Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-24Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-24Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-24Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-24Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-03-24Not public
Application Respondent2026-03-24Not public
Application Respondent2026-03-24Not public
Order2026-03-18Not public
Order2026-03-18Public
Order2026-03-18Public
Order2026-03-09Not public
Order2026-03-09Public
Communication2026-03-05Not public
Publication2026-03-05Not public
Receipt2026-03-04Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-04Not public
Exhibit Appellant2026-03-04Not public
Exhibit Appellant2026-03-04Not public
Other document Appellant2026-03-04Not public
Note2026-02-27Not public
Formal Deficiency found2026-02-27Not public
Receipt2026-02-25Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-25Not public
Exhibit Appellant2026-02-25Not public
Other document Appellant2026-02-25Not public
Formal Deficiency found2026-02-17Not public
Receipt2026-02-10Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-10Not public
Fee2026-02-10Not public
Other document Appellant2026-02-10Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-02-10Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-02-10Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-02-10Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-02-10Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-02-10Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-02-10Not public
Statement of Appeal2026-02-10Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • 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

    RespondentLegal basis: 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

    RespondentLegal basis: 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

    RespondentLegal basis: 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

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 9.3(a) RoP
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • 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)

    RespondentLegal basis: 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

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 295(m) RoP

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

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 158.1 RoP

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

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69(4) UPCA