Win without gain: Microsoft prevails in cost dispute with Suinno

Finnish company Suinno is the owner of EP 2 671 173 covering a “method and means for browsing by walking”. It relates to people browsing the internet by walking to discover search results as they come into close proximity.

The Helsinki-based company accuses Microsoft of infringing the patent and sued the US tech giant at the UPC’s central division Paris in April 2024. Microsoft responded with a counterclaim for revocation.

In the course of the proceedings, the Paris court determined the costs incurred by Microsoft in the infringement action. When Suinno failed to deposit the determined security for costs, the Court of Appeal issued a decision by default against the Finnish claimant in July 2025, dismissing the infringement action (case ID: UPC_CoA_000911/2025). Suinno lodged an application for leave to appeal, which was denied in December 2025 (UPC_CoA_911/2025). According to court documents, Suinno has made no payment to Microsoft to date.

Not independent

During the infringement proceedings, Suinno also filed an application requesting that certain documents be kept confidential from both the public and Microsoft. Helsinki-based patent attorney Mikko Väänänen is both the inventor of the patent-in-suit and was initially the main representative for Suinno in the UPC case. According to the judgments, he is also the company’s managing director and main shareholder.

Microsoft’s representative argued that Väänänen could not be considered independent within the meaning of 2.4.1 of the Code of Conduct for UPC Representatives because he is financially dependent. Initially, this argument was not accepted by the Paris central division in June 2024. On review, however, the court later set aside the initial order and ordered the disclosure of documents to certain identified persons only.

The Court of Appeal rejected Suinno’s appeal early last year (case ID: UPC CoA_563/2024). The court concluded that “Suinno has not been validly represented by a representative within the meaning of Art. 48 (1) (2) and (5) UPCA”. As a result, the judges stated that, even though Väänänen is a qualified UPC representative, his “administrative and financial powers within Suinno – due to his position as managing director and main shareholder – preclude him from representing Suinno” in filing an application to keep documents confidential from Microsoft.

Pyrrhic victory

In the parallel counterclaim for revocation, the central division Paris handed down a judgment in early January this year, revoking EP 173 in its entirety (case ID: UPC_CFI_433/2024). Suinno appealed the decision.

In late March, Microsoft filed applications for a stay of proceedings and for security for legal costs. The US tech company argues that Suinno has repeatedly proven and admitted it lacks the financial resources to fulfil a possible claim for cost reimbursement.

A few days later, the first-instance court determined the costs incurred by Microsoft in the revocation proceedings to be €300,000 and ordered Suinno to pay within three weeks (case ID: UPC_CFI_544/2026).

Subsequently, in a ruling handed down just after Easter, the Court of Appeal ordered Suinno to provide a security for costs to Microsoft in the amount of €600,000 either by deposit or by bank guarantee issued by a bank licensed in the European Union, within three weeks from the date of service of the order.

If the Finnish company fails to comply, the court announced, it could result in another decision by default against Suinno (case ID: UPC_CoA_21/2026).

Claimant or not?

The court also commented on the question of who has the right to demand security. According to Art. 69 UPCA, the defendant only — in this case Microsoft — can demand a security for costs against the applicant, meaning the party initiating the legal proceedings by filing an application, namely Suinno. The court clarified that the fact that Microsoft has brought a counterclaim for revocation does not give Suinno the right to request security in respect of the costs of the counterclaim for revocation, as it is a direct consequence of the infringement action. “An order requiring the defendant and the counterclaimant to provide security for costs would unduly prejudice his ability to defend himself,” the court states in the decision.

This also applies to the appeal, where the appellant is the applicant. Since in this case Suinno appealed the decision in the revocation case, the Finnish NPE is once again the applicant and as such cannot request security for costs. The court further specifies, “If both parties lodge an appeal, each party may only request for security for costs in respect of the costs of the other party’s appeal. This also applies in the case of a cross-appeal.”

Backström for Suinno

After the UPC ruled that inventor Mikko Väänänen could not represent the case himself, Petri Eskola of Finnish law firm Bäckström took over as representative. The small Helsinki-based boutique specialises in IP and dispute resolution, regularly working on national parts of pan-European pharma disputes for clients such as Sandoz, for example against Biogen over natalizumab. The current case was Eskola’s first at the UPC.

Microsoft once again retained Bardehle Pagenberg. The firm has a long-standing relationship with the client and has been active for the US tech company in other disputes, such as against Via LA. In the current case, partners Nadine Westermeyer and Tilman Müller-Stoy led the team. Partner and patent attorney Christian Haupt advised on the technical questions, with assistance from patent attorney Maximilian Vieweg.