Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CFI, 13 October 2025)

Date	13 October 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Paris (FR) Local Division
Type of action	Infringement Action
Case number(s)	UPC_CFI_362/2025
Registry reference	UPC_CFI_362/2025
Parties	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

30 October 2025 : Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CFI, UPC_CFI_362/2025, 30 October 2025) UPC_CFI_362/2025
22 May 2026 : Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia (CFI, UPC_CFI_362/2025, 22 May 2026) UPC_CFI_362/2025
30 July 2026 : Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CFI, UPC_CFI_362/2025, 30 July 2026) UPC_CFI_362/2025
25 August 2026 : Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CFI, 25 August 2026) UPC_CFI_362/2025

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

In an order of 13 October 2025, the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division refused to postpone the deadline for the Vivo companies’ statement of defence in the infringement action brought by Sun Patent Trust on EP 3 407 524 (UPC_CFI_362/2025). Vivo had lodged a preliminary objection contesting the UPC’s jurisdiction over the FRAND issue, which Sun Patent Trust pleads as a main claim. The deadline of 28 November 2025 stands: as a rule, a preliminary objection does not slow down the main proceedings.

Question

Does a preliminary objection to jurisdiction over the FRAND claim justify postponing the deadline for the statement of defence under Rule 19.6?

Decision

No. Under Rule 19.6, a preliminary objection does not affect the time limit for the statement of defence unless the judge-rapporteur decides otherwise. The defendants were already in a position to address FRAND, which they would have raised in their defence in any event, and there were no exceptional circumstances warranting a departure from the principle that a preliminary objection should not delay the main proceedings. The timetable is unchanged: Sun Patent Trust’s comments on the objection on 21 October 2025, a decision expected in the week of 27 October 2025, and the statement of defence on 28 November 2025, a deadline that already resulted from an extension granted on 26 August 2025 under Rule 9.3. The order may be reviewed by the panel (Rule 333).

Key points for practice

A preliminary objection is not a tool for managing the timetable: the defendant must prepare its statement of defence in parallel.
In SEP litigation, the fact that the FRAND issue is challenged on jurisdictional grounds is not enough to suspend the time limit for the defence.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 9.3, 19.6 and 333

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

Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CFI, 2025-10-30), 30 October 2025
Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL (CFI, UPC_CFI_362/2025, 2026-05-22), 22 May 2026
Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CFI, UPC_CFI_362/2025, 2026-07-30), 30 July 2026
Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CFI, 2026-08-25), 25 August 2026

Going further

Lexicon: Standard essential patent (SEP), FRAND offer and counter-offer, Injunctions and standard essential patents, Patent infringement action.

Dhenne Avocats blog: 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_CFI_362/2025 official number

Follow this case

Parties

claimantSun Patent Trust25 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantVivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.Vivo Tech GmbH Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL3 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

13 October 2025 Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CFI, 13 October 2025) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_362/2025
30 October 2025 Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CFI, UPC_CFI_362/2025, 30 October 2025) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_362/2025
La division locale de Paris rejette l'exception préliminaire de Vivo, retient sa compétence au titre du lieu de la contrefaçon et renvoie au fond la recevabilité de la demande FRAND de Sun Patent Trust.
16 March 2026 Vivo Mobile Communication v Sun Patent Trust (CoA, 16 March 2026) Appeal RoP220.2 · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision
Les appels de Vivo sont rejetés : la formation pouvait renvoyer au fond l'exception d'incompétence visant la demande de détermination FRAND, ce renvoi relevant d'un usage non abusif du pouvoir de gestion de l'instance.
22 May 2026 Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia (CFI, UPC_CFI_362/2025, 22 May 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_362/2025
La juge rapporteure de la division locale de Paris fixe l'audience aux 9, 10 et 11 septembre 2026 et impose une note de synthèse de 50 pages au plus avant le 21 juillet 2026.
30 July 2026 Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CFI, UPC_CFI_362/2025, 30 July 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_362/2025
La juge rapporteure de la division locale de Paris fixe la valeur du litige à 10 millions d'euros et organise une audience publique sur les questions techniques suivie d'une journée à huis clos sur les questions FRAND.
25 August 2026 Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CFI, 25 August 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_362/2025
La division locale de Paris autorise le désistement de l'action en contrefaçon de Sun Patent Trust et de la demande reconventionnelle en nullité de Vivo, clôt les procédures et annule l'audience.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La demande de report du délai du mémoire en défense est rejetée : l'exception préliminaire d'incompétence sur la question FRAND ne justifie pas de déroger à la règle 19.6.
Appeal: An appeal is documented in the corpus (see above).
Instance: First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

EP 3 407 524 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CFI, 25 August 2026) cited in this record
Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CFI, UPC_CFI_362/2025, 30 July 2026) cited in this record
Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia (CFI, UPC_CFI_362/2025, 22 May 2026) cited in this record
Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CFI, UPC_CFI_362/2025, 30 October 2025) cited in this record

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

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`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 recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet · 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.