2026-04-28 - CoA - Suinno v. Microsoft - UPC-COA-0000021/2026

CoA Panel 2 (Kalden presiding, Rombach JR) rejected Suinno's R. 335 RoP application to revoke or vary the 7 April 2026 security-for-costs order requiring it to deposit EUR 600,000 as security in its appeal against the Paris CD's revocation of EP 2 671 173. The Court confirmed that an order under R. 158 RoP is a case management order amenable to variation/revocation under R. 335 RoP (following Total Semiconductor v Texas Instruments) but found Suinno's grounds — Art. 69(4) UPCA scope, the Enforcement Directive, TRIPS, and Charter Articles 17/47 — without merit. Art. 69(4) UPCA's reference to Arts. 59-62 UPCA is not exhaustive ('in particular'); the protective purpose of the provision applies wherever the appellant's financial position raises legitimate concerns about cost recovery (following Volkswagen v Network). The Court refused the requested CJEU referral on the ground that beyond reasonable doubt EU law, the Enforcement Directive and TRIPS do not preclude a security order, and the Charter alone cannot found Art. 267 TFEU jurisdiction. Belated objections to the amount were procedurally barred, and there were no grounds to extend time for providing security under R. 9.3 RoP.