Home » UPC decisions » Central Division » Paris Central Division » CD Paris, September 16, 2024, Order on Manifest Inadmissibility, UPC_CFI_164/2024

CD Paris, September 16, 2024, Order on Manifest Inadmissibility, UPC_CFI_164/2024

2 min Reading time

Key takeaways

The Court held that “manifest inadmissibility” must be established prima facie on the basis of simple factual findings. This interpretation promotes procedural efficiency by enabling the quick dismissal of baseless claims while ensuring potentially complex legal issues are addressed at the appropriate stage.

In this case, the defendant argued that the action was inadmissible because the claimant’s representative was also its director and shareholder, potentially violating the representative’s independence (Rule 290(2) RoP and Article 48(5) UPCA). The Court found that these arguments did not meet the threshold under Rule 361 RoP. The Court emphasized that inadmissibility must be glaringly obvious from the initial filings, without requiring extensive factual investigation.

The Court confirmed that a statement of claim, even without specifying a precise amount for damages, can still meet the specificity requirements of Rule 13.1(k) RoP. The Court found that the claimant’s clear request to “determine and award past damages” sufficiently indicated the sought remedy.

Division

Central Division Paris

UPC number

UPC_CFI_164/2024, ACT_18406/2024, ORD_43015/2024

Type of proceedings

Place type of proceedings

Parties

Applicant/Defendant: Microsoft Corporation

Respondent/Claimant: Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy

Patent(s)

EP 2 671 173

Body of legislation / Rules

Rules 361, 333, 290.2, 13.1(k) RoP

Art. 48(5) UPCA


Was the article helpful?


Categories


Tags

  • German and European Patent Attorney, UPC Representative

  • Attorney-at-Law (Rechtsanwalt), UPC Representative, Partner

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

* = Required field