Key takeaways
High threshold for "manifestly inadmissible" under Rule 361 RoP
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.
Interpretation of Rule 13.1(k) RoP
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
C5B389F6811A0F805E5C1F870CEEA723_en Download
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
