UPC_CoA_570/2024

METHOD AND MEANS FOR BROWSING BY WALKING

AppealsMain AppealCourt of AppealAppealCase Closed

This case cites

Authorities cited within the decisions on file for this case.

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
361	jurisdiction — manifestly inadmissible threshold requires clear-cut cases without in-depth analysis	Binding	The inadmissibility requirement under R. 361 RoP must be reserved for clear-cut cases and should not result in a full exchange of arguments and evidence, as is clear from the use of the words "manifestly inadmissible".
333	jurisdiction — panel review of judge-rapporteur order	Binding	Following an application for a panel review filed by Microsoft on 17 July 2024 under R.333 RoP, the Paris Central Division [...] rejected said application
220.3	jurisdiction — discretionary review admissibility	Binding	This application for discretionary review relates to an application under R. 361 RoP filed by Microsoft
262A	language regime — confidentiality application	Background	an application under R. 361 RoP filed by Microsoft [...] requesting that Suinno's infringement action and R. 262A RoP application be rejected as being manifestly inadmissible

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
UPC_CoA_454/2024	jurisdiction — prior discretionary review inadmissible for same order	Binding	On 01 August 2024 Microsoft lodged a request for discretionary review (R. 220.3 RoP) of the order issued by the judge-rapporteur (ORD_33379/2024), which was held inadmissible by the Standing judge of the Court of appeal in an order dated 21 August 2024 (APL_44552/2024).

Cited by

Subsequent UPC decisions citing this case.

Not yet cited in another decision in our corpus.