UPClytics
View all cases

UPC CoA 586/2024

Oct 7, 2024·EP2671173: METHOD AND MEANS FOR BROWSING BY WALKING

Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Appeal
Category
Main Appeal
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Mikko Väänänen
Respondents
Reps: Prof. Tilmann Müller-Stoy (Bardehle Pagenberg); Nadine Westermeyer (Bardehle Pagenberg)
Division
Court of Appeal
Technology
Computing & AI
Language
English
Decisions
  • 2024-10-09
    DismissedRequest for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)

    Court of Appeal (Standing Judge) dismissed Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy's request for discretionary review (Rule 220.3 RoP) of the Paris Central Division's order for security for costs as inadmissible. The court held that Suinno had not first requested the Court of First Instance to grant leave to appeal, which is a prerequisite before seeking discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP. The fact that the CFI order failed to indicate the right to appeal under Rule 158.3 RoP did not change this: the omission could not be read as an implied grant of leave.

    Legal issues:Admissibility of discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoPRequirement to seek leave to appeal before requesting discretionary reviewFailure to indicate appeal right under Rule 158.3 RoPSecurity for costs
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-10-09Not public
Headnote-and-Keywords2024-10-09Not public
Outcome of the Order2024-10-09Not public
Final order2024-10-09Public
Panel-Appointment2024-10-09Not public
Payment receipt from ERP software -paid today2024-10-07Not public
Request for Discretionary Review2024-10-07Not public