View all cases
UPC CoA 570/2024
Oct 1, 2024·EP2671173: METHOD AND MEANS FOR BROWSING BY WALKING
- Case details
- StatusCase ClosedActionAppealCategoryMain Appeal
- Parties
- ClaimantsReps: Prof. Tilmann Müller-Stoy (Bardehle Pagenberg); Nadine Westermeyer (Bardehle Pagenberg)
- Division
- Court of Appeal
- Judges
- Technology
- Computing & AI
- Language
- English
Decisions
- 2024-10-15DismissedRequest for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
Court of Appeal dismissed Microsoft's request for discretionary review (Rule 220.3 RoP) of the Paris Central Division's order refusing to declare Suinno's infringement action manifestly inadmissible under Rule 361 RoP on account of alleged lack of independence of Suinno's representative. The CoA held that the manifestly inadmissible threshold under Rule 361 RoP requires clear-cut cases without in-depth analysis, and that the CFI's refusal to find manifest inadmissibility was not an appropriate case for discretionary review.
Legal issues:Discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoPManifest inadmissibility under Rule 361 RoPIndependence of UPC representative under Art. 48(5) UPCAManaging director/shareholder as representative
Documents
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Acknowledgement-of-lodging | 2024-10-15 | Not public |
| Headnote-and-Keywords | 2024-10-15 | Not public |
| Outcome of the Order | 2024-10-15 | Not public |
| Order R 220.3 | 2024-10-15 | Public |
| Panel-Appointment | 2024-10-02 | Not public |
| BP02 | 2024-10-01 | Not public |
| BP03a | 2024-10-01 | Not public |
| Application | 2024-10-01 | Not public |
| BP03 | 2024-10-01 | Not public |
| BP1 | 2024-10-01 | Not public |
| BP02a | 2024-10-01 | Not public |
| Exhibit BP00 | 2024-10-01 | Not public |
| BP01a | 2024-10-01 | Not public |