UPC CoA 911/2025
Nov 20, 2025·EP2671173 · METHOD AND MEANS FOR BROWSING BY WALKING
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (Claim dismissed)ActionAppealCategoryMain appeal
- Parties
- Respondents
- Microsoft CorporationOperating co.
Representatives- Tilman Mueller-Stoy-Bardehle Pagenberg
- Nadine Westermeyer-Bardehle Pagenberg
- Division
- Court of Appeal
- Judges
- Technology
- Electrical engineeringTelecommunications · Digital communication · Computer technology
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Nov 24, 2025
- Last decision
- Dec 24, 2025
| Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|
| All UPC | 124 |
| Judge Emmanuel Gougé | Locked |
At the UPC: Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy (29 cases)·Microsoft Group (34 cases)
This dispute contains 26 other proceedings
UPC CoA 51/2026·UPC CoA 21/2026·UPC CFI 544/2026·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·2025
- 2025-12-24Application to leave to appeal a cost decision (RoP221)Public
Summary: The standing judge of the Court of Appeal (Emmanuel Gougé) dismissed Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy's application for leave to appeal the Paris Central Division's cost decision of 6 November 2025, which had ordered Suinno to pay EUR 350,000 in costs to Microsoft Corporation in connection with the infringement action UPC_CFI_164/2024 (EP 2 671 173). The CoA found the costs award reasonable and proportionate given the EUR 5,000,000 case value and EUR 600,000 ceiling, and that Suinno did not demonstrate that the first-instance court's assessment was wrong.
Show the legal issues (4)
- Leave to appeal a cost decision (R. 221 RoP)
- Proportionality and reasonableness of costs award
- Scale of ceilings for recoverable costs
- Assessment of value of infringement action (R. 370.6 RoP)
- 2025-11-24Application RoP 223Public
Summary: Court of Appeal dismissed Suinno's application for suspensive effect of its appeal (related to costs decisions made against Suinno by the Paris Central Division following a default decision dismissing Suinno's infringement action against Microsoft). The CoA held that Suinno had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances nor that the impugned costs decisions were manifestly erroneous.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Suspensive effect of appeal on costs decisions (R.223 RoP)
- Manifest error standard
- Enforcement of costs decisions pending appeal
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Case closed | 2025-12-24 | Not public |
| Decision | 2025-12-24 | Not public |
| Final Order | 2025-12-24 | Public |
| Cover sheet | 2025-12-03 | Not public |
| Statement of Response | 2025-12-03 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2025-12-03 | Not public |
| Order | 2025-11-24 | Not public |
| Order | 2025-11-24 | Public |
| Order | 2025-11-24 | Not public |
| Order | 2025-11-24 | Public |
| Publication | 2025-11-21 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2025-11-20 | Not public |
| Other document Appellant | 2025-11-20 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2025-11-20 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2025-11-20 | Not public |
| Other document Appellant | 2025-11-20 | Not public |
| Other document Appellant | 2025-11-20 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2025-11-20 | Not public |
| Formal Deficiency found | 2025-11-20 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2025-11-19 | Not public |
| Fee | 2025-11-19 | Not public |
| Statement of appeal and statement of the grounds of appeal | 2025-11-19 | Not public |
| Statement of appeal and statement of the grounds of appeal | 2025-11-19 | Not public |
| Statement of appeal and statement of the grounds of appeal | 2025-11-19 | Not public |
| Statement of appeal and statement of the grounds of appeal | 2025-11-19 | Not public |
| Statement of appeal and statement of the grounds of appeal | 2025-11-19 | Not public |
| Proof of entitlement to 40% reduction in court fees | 2025-11-19 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2025-11-19 | Not public |