REGISTER now: Visser ai webinar - BEYOND THE HYPE: AI IN PATENT PROSECUTION
​

UPC rules that in house lawyers cannot act as UPC representatives

​
Darren Smyth
​
October 16, 2024
Additional information
Chevron icon
Info
Tags
UPC
Recent cases
Representation
Table of contents
Chevron icon
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v Microsoft Corporation (UPC_CFI_164/2024)

Order of 16 September 2024 (ORD_41174/2024)[1]

This decision of the Paris Central Division of the UPC arose in the context of an infringement action brought by Suinno against Microsoft, and in particular an application by Suinno to keep certain evidence confidential. The court had ordered access to certain materials to be restricted to a confidentiality club consisting of Microsoft attorneys and directors, and Microsoft challenged this order. One of the issues Microsoft raised was whether, as was the case here for Suinno, where a person was the managing director and main shareholder of a party, could that person act as the UPC representative of that party, in view of the requirement of independence of representatives as set out in Article 48(5) UPC Agreement.

The UPC accepted the need for confidentiality of the materials. More significantly, the court accepted that Article 48(5) UPC Agreement, which is modelled on Article 19 (5) of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, precludes a party being represented by a lawyer that is employed by or financially dependent upon the party. While acknowledging that such lawyers can validly represent their employer in court where allowed under national legal systems, the UPC ruled that, analogous to the situation at the CJEU, parties must use the services of a third person who is authorised and cannot act themselves.

Accordingly, the court held that the original application for confidentiality filed by Suinno was invalidly filed and therefore set aside the resulting order and declared the application inadmissible. However, it ordered that the restrictions on access to the materials be maintained.

Permission to appeal was granted, and it will be interesting to see whether the Court of Appeal takes the same view. If so, this has significant consequences for access to justice at the UPC by smaller parties who may struggle to fund external litigation lawyers.


[1] https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/node/1104

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

Invalidity of juicer patent upheld on appeal
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal upheld the invalidity of Hurom’s juicer patent for lack of inventive step, while clarifying the admissibility requirements for patent amendments and the use of the unamended description when construing amended claims. It also confirmed the UPC’s jurisdiction over infringement in Poland despite Poland not being a UPCA Contracting Member State, but found that Hurom had failed to establish infringement under Polish law.
​
Evidence preservation doesn’t stretch to interrogation
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal confirmed that evidence-preservation orders may be granted ex parte where there is a demonstrable risk that evidence could be destroyed or become unavailable, and that such orders may extend to relevant commercial and promotional documents. However, Art. 60 UPCA does not permit a bailiff or expert to question the defendant’s personnel on substantive technical matters, which must instead be handled under the Court’s control.
​
UPC Court of Appeal clarifies claim construction, the role of party experts, and provisional measures in direct-competition cases
03 November 2026
The CoA’s decision of 30 April 2025 in Insulet v EOFlow provides important guidance on claim construction, the role of party-appointed experts and the requirements for provisional injunctions.
​