Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v. Microsoft Corporation, UPC Court of Appeal, 24 February 2026, UPC_CoA_883/2025, UPC_CoA_892/2025
Requests for a rehearing based on a fundamental procedural defect
The UPC Court of Appeal has rejected an application by Suinno to set aside a previous order of the Court of Appeal and to order a rehearing on the basis of an alleged fundamental procedural defect.
Suinno had commenced infringement proceedings against Microsoft. The Paris Central Division subsequently ordered Suinno to provide security for costs and when Suinno failed to do so, applications by Suinno (to reduce the security) and Microsoft (for a decision by default) ended up in the Court of Appeal. On 12 July 2025 the Court of Appeal rejected Suinno’s application and granted Microsoft’s – the infringement action was dismissed and Suinno was ordered to pay Microsoft’s costs of the first instance and appeal proceedings regarding the infringement action. Microsoft then applied for a costs decision and a final order was issued on 6 November 2025. Suinno applied for leave to appeal but this was denied by the Court of Appeal.
In this application Suinno sought to re-open the infringement proceedings and also requested the court to grant suspensive effect to the costs order. This application was rejected: Suinno had failed to establish the existence of a fundamental procedural defect, as required by Art. 81(1) UPCA and R.247 RoP. Suinno’s argument was that Microsoft had exaggerated its costs and made an excessive request for security and that this behaviour amounted to a denial of Suinno’s right to a fair trial under Art. 6 ECHR. The Court of Appeal decided that these alleged grounds were insufficient to conclude that the CoA had made an error in its earlier decision, let alone such a serious error that it could be considered to be fundamental.
A copy of the decision can be found here.
