SUN PATENT Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CoA, 23 September 2025)
| Date | 23 September 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Application Rop313 |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CoA_755/2025 |
| Registry reference | APL_34965/2025 · UPC_CoA_755/2025 |
| Parties | APPLE 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
- 31 October 2025 : Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CoA, UPC_CoA_755/2025, 31 October 2025) APL_34965/2025 · UPC_CoA_755/2025
- 26 January 2026 : Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CoA, 26 January 2026) APL_34965/2025 · APL_34967/2025 · UPC_CoA_755/2025 · UPC_CoA_757/2025
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
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
- In licensing disputes, a third-party licensee whose agreements are filed may intervene on appeal to protect their confidentiality, even after the opposing party has had initial access (paragraphs 11 and 12).
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
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.
Parties
- defendantVivo Mobile Communication Co.,Ltd.21 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantVivo Tech GmbH21 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantVivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL20 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantAPPLE Inc. (intervener) in Sun Patent Trust2 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
- 23 September 2025 SUN PATENT Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CoA, 23 September 2025) Application Rop313 · UPC_CoA_755/2025
- 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.
- 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
EP 3 407 524mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patentEP 3 852 468mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CoA, 26 January 2026) cited in this record
- Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CoA, UPC_CoA_755/2025, 31 October 2025) cited in this record
- APPLE (intervener) in Sun Pat v Vivo Mobile Communication (CoA, 23 September 2025) cites this decision
Patents and standards
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.