Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v. Microsoft Corporation, UPC Court of Appeal, Case no. UPC_CoA_21/2026
The UPC Court of Appeal has refused an application by Suinno to revoke or vary an order requiring it to provide EUR 600,000 by way of security for costs in its appeal against the revocation of EP 2 671 173. The appeal arises from a counterclaim for revocation brought by Microsoft after Suinno’s infringement action had been dismissed by default following Suinno’s failure to provide security for costs in those proceedings. Suinno had also failed to pay substantial costs previously ordered against it.
The Court confirmed that an order for security for costs under Article 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158 RoP is a case management order that may be varied or revoked, but held that no grounds had been shown to justify doing so. It rejected Suinno’s argument that security for costs is limited to the situations referred to in Articles 59–62 UPCA, holding that those provisions are non exhaustive and that the purpose of security is to protect the opposing party where there is a real risk that a costs order may be irrecoverable. In light of Suinno’s financial position and history of non payment, the conditions for ordering security were satisfied.
The Court also rejected challenges based on the Enforcement Directive, TRIPS and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, holding that none prevent the imposition of security for legal costs and that the right to effective judicial protection is not absolute. The Court noted that in its reply to the application for security for costs, Suinno did not raise any specific objections to the amount being sought, therefore their new arguments were considered late and could not justify revoking the Order. The Court further refused a referral to the CJEU and declined to extend the time for providing security.
A copy of the order / decision can be found here.
