Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CFI, UPC_CFI_362/2025, 30 October 2025)

Date	30 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

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

By order of 30 October 2025 (UPC_CFI_362/2025), the Paris Local Division rejected the preliminary objection raised by three Vivo companies against Sun Patent Trust’s infringement action on EP 3 407 524. It upheld its territorial competence and deferred to the merits the admissibility of the request for a ruling that the terms offered are FRAND (claim A.II). For SEP disputes, the order accepts that a FRAND request attached to the infringement action raises no jurisdictional bar at this stage.

Question

Does the UPC have jurisdiction over a patentee’s request for a ruling that its licence offer is FRAND, and is the Paris Local Division competent although no defendant is domiciled in France?

Decision

The main claim is an infringement action. The FRAND request, conditional on a FRAND offer, is in substance an anticipated answer to the FRAND defence, which the UPC may address incidentally, since the issue is linked to infringement. FRAND arguments will be debated in any event, so the admissibility of claim A.II was deferred to the merits under Rule 20.2 RoP. The domicile criterion of Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA was not met, but the place of infringement criterion, read consistently with Art. 7(2) of Regulation 1215/2012, was: a product was bought on Fnac.com, a website directed at the French market, and Vivo Tech appears on the packaging as authorised European representative. Costs were reserved for the merits and the deadline for the statement of defence was maintained.

Key points for practice

A patentee’s request for a ruling that its offer is FRAND may accompany the infringement action, its admissibility being examined on the merits (Art. 32 UPCA and Rule 20.2 RoP).
A purchase on a website directed at the French market suffices to found the Paris Local Division’s competence as the place of infringement.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Arts 32(1)(a), 33(1) and (7) and 73(2)(a)
Rules of Procedure: Rules 9.3, 19, 20 and 220.2
Other provisions: Regulation 1215/2012, Art. 7(2)
Case law cited: Panasonic v OPPO, Mannheim Local Division, 22 November 2024, Aylo v Dish, Court of Appeal, 3 September 2024

Related decisions

Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication, 13 October 2025, earlier order in the same proceedings.
Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication, 30 July 2026, order following the interim conference.

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, 2025-10-13), 13 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
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.
30 October 2025 Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CFI, UPC_CFI_362/2025, 30 October 2025) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_362/2025
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 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.
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, 13 October 2025) cited in this record
Panasonic Holdings v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications (CFI, 22 November 2024) cited in this record
AYLO Premium v DISH Technologies (CoA, 3 September 2024) cited in this record
Vivo Mobile Communication v Sun Patent Trust (CoA, 16 March 2026) cites this decision

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, 13 October 2025)	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.