Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CFI, UPC_CFI_361/2025, 30 October 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 30 October 2025 (UPC_CFI_361/2025, EP 3 852 468 with unitary effect), the Paris Local Division, sitting as a full panel, dismissed the preliminary objection raised by Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia, Vivo Tech and Vivo Mobile Communication in Sun Patent Trust’s infringement action. A SEP holder may therefore ask the UPC, within its infringement action, for a finding that its licence offer is FRAND, with the admissibility of that request left to the main proceedings. A parallel order was issued the same day in UPC_CFI_362/2025 (EP 3 407 524).

Question

Does the UPC have jurisdiction under Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA over request A.II, which seeks a finding that the claimant’s proposed licence terms are FRAND, and is the Paris Local Division competent although no defendant is domiciled in France?

Decision

The action is primarily one for infringement of an essential patent. The FRAND offer is merely incidental to it, since the injunction request depends on it and the claimant anticipates the FRAND defence. That defence falls within the UPC’s jurisdiction, as the Mannheim Local Division had accepted. The admissibility of request A.II will be decided in the main proceedings (Rule 20.2 RoP). On internal competence, Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA does not apply, but the claimant’s purchase of an allegedly infringing product on Fnac.com, a site aimed at the French market, is sufficient at this stage to found the Paris division’s competence as the place of infringement (Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA). Costs are reserved to the main proceedings and the time limit for the Statement of Defence is unaffected.

Key points for practice

• A request for a declaration that a licence offer is FRAND, attached to an infringement action, survives a jurisdictional objection. Its admissibility remains open on the merits.
• A test purchase on a website targeting the French market is enough, at the preliminary objection stage, to anchor the action in a French local division, even where the seller is not one of the defendants.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 32(1)(a), 33(1)(a) and (b) and 73(2)(a)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.3, 19.1, 20.1, 20.2 and 220.2

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Art. 7(2)

Case law cited

Panasonic v OPPO, 22 November 2024 (Mannheim Local Division, UPC_CFI_210/2023, paragraphs 237 to 240), Aylo v Dish, 3 September 2024 (Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_188/2024)

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.