Vivo Mobile Communication Iber v Sun Patent Trust (CFI, 21 July 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 31 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_361/2025), the full panel of the Paris Local Division set the regime protecting the confidential information produced by Sun Patent Trust in its infringement action against three Vivo companies (EP 3 852 468). It gave three Vivo employees access to the highly confidential information, in addition to Vivo’s representative and legal team, and refused to bar them from future licensing negotiations. The order is a reference point on the make-up of a confidentiality club where comparable licences are in issue.

Question

How many natural persons from the opposing party should have access to highly confidential information, and can they be barred from taking part in licensing negotiations?

Decision

The panel first held admissible the amended request of 13 June 2025, filed after the licensees’ input, and found that the non-disclosure agreement between the parties did not make the initial request inadmissible. It then examined whether each item was confidential and whether the restrictions were proportionate (Art. 58 UPCA, Rules 262A.5 and 262A.6, Art. 9(3) of Directive 2016/943). At least one natural person per party must have access. Given the need to compare FRAND licences and the presence of three defendants, three Vivo employees were admitted. A bar on licensing negotiations was disproportionate, as no concrete risk of misuse had been shown. External experts must be named in a separate application. Use outside the proceedings is prohibited on pain of penalty payments.

Key points for practice

• A party seeking to exclude club members from licensing negotiations must prove a concrete risk of misuse. Otherwise a confidentiality obligation backed by penalty payments is enough.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 58

Rules of Procedure

Rules 105.2, 115, 220.2, 262.2, 262.3, 262A and 263

Other provisions

Directive (EU) 2016/943, Arts 2(1) and 9(3)

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, 12 February 2025 (UPC_CoA_621/2024), Düsseldorf Local Division, 15 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_181/2025), Ericsson v ASUSTEK, Milan Local Division, 20 June 2025 (UPC_CFI_319/2024), relied on by the claimant

Related decisions

• Vivo v Sun Patent Trust, Court of Appeal, 25 August 2025, suspensive effect refused against this order

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.