Opens in a new tab

SUN PATENT Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CoA, 23 September 2025)

Date23 September 2025
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionApplication Rop313
Case number(s)UPC_CoA_755/2025
Registry referenceAPL_34965/2025 · UPC_CoA_755/2025
PartiesAPPLE Inc. (intervener) in Sun Patent Trust v. Vivo Mobile Communication Co.,Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 23 September 2025 in the joined appeals UPC_CoA_755/2025 and UPC_CoA_757/2025, the Court of Appeal admits Apple as an intervener in support of SUN PATENT Trust, to the extent that Apple’s confidential information is concerned. The appeals are directed against two orders of the Paris Local Division of 31 July 2025 which, in the infringement action against Vivo on EP 3 407 524 and EP 3 852 468, had given three Vivo employees access to highly confidential information. The order confirms that a third party to licence agreements filed in the proceedings may intervene in an appeal on the confidentiality regime.

Question

Does Apple establish a legal interest within the meaning of Rule 313.1 RoP when, according to Vivo, the three authorised employees have already accessed the highly confidential information?

Decision

The Court finds that Apple has a direct and present interest in the outcome of the appeals against the panel review orders: access already granted does not exclude that interest, since setting those orders aside would deprive the employees of access to, and further use of, the unredacted documents (paragraph 11). Whether Apple’s concerns are well founded is for the final orders. Apple being a party to the agreements is sufficient for its admission (paragraph 12). Apple may file a Statement in intervention within 15 days and take part in the oral hearing. The parties have 15 days to respond.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rules 262A, 263, 313, 314, 315.1(a) and 331.2
Case law cited
Court of Appeal orders of 25 August 2025, ORD_35142/2025 and ORD_35139/2025.

Related decisions

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.


Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

Lexicon: UPC Court of Appeal, Standard essential patent (SEP), FRAND offer and counter-offer, Injunctions and standard essential patents.

Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show, FRAND at the UPC: What the Court Has Decided, What Remains Open.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Munich’s FRAND Guidelines: A Compass Drawn Too Finely, Tesla v. InterDigital and the FRAND Undertaking Inside the Pool (Kluwer Patent Blog).

Further reading: M. Dhenne, “Calculation of FRAND Royalties: An Overview of Practices Around the World”, European Intellectual Property Review 2019, vol. 41, no. 12, p. 754. M. Dhenne, “Conversant v LG: What about FRAND in France?”, European Intellectual Property Review 2019, vol. 41, no. 9, p. 585.

Source and translations

Official source
Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language
not recorded
Translation available
no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked
not recorded
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

  • UPC_CoA_755/2025 official number

Follow this case

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 23 September 2025 SUN PATENT Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CoA, 23 September 2025) Application Rop313 · UPC_CoA_755/2025
  2. 31 October 2025 Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CoA, UPC_CoA_755/2025, 31 October 2025) Generic application · UPC_CoA_755/2025

    La demande de Vivo est rejetée : la règle 21.2 suppose un appel contre une décision sur exception préliminaire, et la suspension comme la prorogation de délais relèvent d'abord de la première instance, faute de circonstances exceptionnelles.

  3. 26 January 2026 Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CoA, 26 January 2026) Appeal RoP220.2 · UPC_CoA_755/2025

    La qualité de salarié d'une partie ne suffit pas, en elle-même, à refuser l'accès aux informations hautement confidentielles (§ 27). Exclure les salariés restreindrait fortement la liberté de la partie de choisir qui la représente et compromettrait son droit à un recours effectif et à un procès équitable (§ 27). Le rég…

What the record states

Nature of the act
Application Rop313
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La cour d’appel admet Apple à intervenir au soutien de SUN PATENT Trust pour la protection de ses informations confidentielles, l’accès déjà accordé à trois salariés de Vivo n’excluant pas son intérêt juridique.
Appeal
Decision of the Court of Appeal.
Instance
Court of Appeal decision.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 3 407 524
Wireless communication terminal device, wireless communication base station device, and resource region setting method
recorded proprietor: Sun Patent Trust Inc
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 14 other decision(s): Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CFI, 25 August 2026) · Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CFI, UPC_CFI_362/2025, 3 · Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CFI, UPC_CFI_361/2025, 3 · Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia (CFI, UPC_CFI_362/ · Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia (CFI, UPC_CFI_361/ · Vivo Mobile Communication v Sun Patent Trust (CoA, 16 March 2026) · Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CFI, UPC_CFI_361/2025, 3 · Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CFI, UPC_CFI_362/2025, 3
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · European Patent Register
existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically)
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
EP 3 852 468
Deterministic UE behaviour for CSI/SRS reporting during DRX
recorded proprietor: Sun Patent Trust Inc
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 11 other decision(s): Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CFI, UPC_CFI_361/2025, 3 · Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia (CFI, UPC_CFI_361/ · Vivo Mobile Communication v Sun Patent Trust (CoA, 16 March 2026) · Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CFI, UPC_CFI_361/2025, 3 · Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia (CFI, ORD_34798/20 · Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia (CFI, ORD_34800/20 · Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CoA, 25 August 2025) · Vivo Tech v Sun Patent Trust (CoA, 25 August 2025)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · European Patent Register
existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically)
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.