2024-07-02 - CD Paris - Suinno v. Microsoft - UPC_CFI_164/2024

1. The violation of the obligation to act as an independent counsellor, imposed by the code of conduct, has to be assessed with reference to the possible harm to the interests of the party on whose behalf the professional acts. 2. The violation of the obligation to act as an independent counsellor cannot be asserted by the opposing party, which has no interest in such a finding, but only by the party for whose benefit such an obligation is placed 3. The fact that a party’s representative also carries out active administration tasks on behalf of the represented party and that he may be directly interested in the outcome of the case is not decisive in order to consider that the representative is not independent for the purposes of the application of Rules 290, 291 and 292 ‘RoP’.

Court rejects application to reject action because their representative was allegedly not independent because he was also one of the inventors of the patent in suit