Key takeaways
The possible violation of the obligation to act as an independent counsellor cannot be asserted by the opposing party, but only by the party for whose benefit such an obligation is placed.
✓
Opposing party has no interest in such a finding as the effectiveness of a party’s right to defence in court shall be protected.
The obligation to act as an independent counsellor must be assessed with reference to the possible harm to the interests of the party on whose behalf the professional acts.
✓
The scale of assessment is not an absolute one.
The fact that a representative also carries out active administration tasks on behalf of the represented party and may be directly interested in the outcome of the case is not decisive for the assessment of independency.
✓
The purpose of interest here is inter alia the protection against disloyal representation.
Division
Central Division Paris
UPC number
UPC_CFI_164/2024
Type of proceedings
Revocation action
Parties
Applicant: Microsoft Corporation
Respondent: Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Patent(s)
EP 2 671 173
Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 8.1 RoP, Rule 13.1(k) RoP, Rule 290 et seqq. RoP, Rule 361 RoP, Art. 2.4.1 Code of Conduct for representatives
