UPC CFI CD Paris, 16 September 2024: manifest inadmissibility must be clearly evident

Manifest inadmissibility of the action (Rule 361 RoP) implies that the inadmissibility must be clearly evident from the pleadings and its assessment does not require any particular in-depth analysis. 

Alleged lack of independence by the claimant’s representative does not appear to be ‘manifest’ and, therefore, could not lead to an assessment of manifest inadmissibility of the action. 

Requesting “the Court to determine and award past damages” is a sufficiently clear indication of the remedy sought with the infringement action and the fact that the damages asked is not indicate in a specific amount does not render the claim generic and does not constitute a violation of the requirement set by Rule 13(1)(k) RoP.

IPPT20240916, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Microsoft v Suinno - I