Opens in a new tab

Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CoA, 26 January 2026)

Date26 January 2026
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionAppeal RoP220.2
Case number(s)UPC_CoA_755/2025;UPC_CoA_757/2025
Registry referenceAPL_34965/2025 · APL_34967/2025 · UPC_CoA_755/2025 · UPC_CoA_757/2025
PartiesSun Patent Trust v. Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL and APPLE Inc. (intervener)

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 · 19 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

Being an employee of a party is not in itself a ground for refusing access to highly confidential information (para. 27). Excluding employees would severely restrict the party’s freedom to choose who represents it and would compromise its right to an effective remedy and a fair trial (para. 27). The so-called External Eyes Only regime is rejected: even if preferable from the sole standpoint of protecting secrecy, it cannot prevail over the right to a fair trial (para. 27). The risk is addressed through a less intrusive measure, a ban on the employee taking part in licence negotiations with the counterparties to the disclosed agreements, here for two years (paras. 28 and 34 to 39), since knowledge once acquired cannot be unlearned (para. 36). The test is one of proportionality, taking into account the person’s role in the proceedings, the relevance of the information to that role and the trust the person inspires (paras. 23 to 26).

Why it matters

A patent holder that bases its FRAND case on comparable agreements cannot at the same time withhold them from scrutiny by the opposing party. The debate shifts: it no longer concerns the principle of access, but the duration and scope of the negotiation ban that accompanies it. The decision follows the line opened by Daedalus Prime v Xiaomi on 12 February 2025 and applied to FRAND litigation by the Milan Local Division on 28 April 2025.

Practical point

Submit with the application itself the list of named persons, their exact role and why they need access, then propose a calibrated negotiation ban yourself. That is now where the argument is won, not on refusing access.

Summary prepared by Dhenne Avocats. Only the official text of the decision 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
  • UPC_CoA_757/2025 official number

Follow these proceedings

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

    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.

  2. 23 September 2025 APPLE (intervener) in Sun Pat v Vivo Mobile Communication (CoA, 23 September 2025) Application Rop313 · UPC_CoA_757/2025
  3. 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.

  4. 31 October 2025 Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CoA, UPC_CoA_757/2025, 31 October 2025) Generic application · UPC_CoA_757/2025
  5. 26 January 2026 Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CoA, 26 January 2026) Appeal RoP220.2 · UPC_CoA_755/2025, UPC_CoA_757/2025

What the record states

Nature of the act
Appeal RoP220.2
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
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 régime dit External Eyes Only est écarté : même préférable du point de vue de la seule protection du secret, il ne peut primer le droit à un procès équitable (§ 27). Le risque se traite par une mesure moins attentatoire, l'interdiction faite au salarié de participer aux négociations de licence avec les contreparties des accords communiqués, ici pendant deux ans (§ 28 et § 34 à 39), la connaissance acquise ne pouvant être désapprise (§ 36). Le contrôle est un contrôle de proportionnalité tenant compte du rôle de la personne dans la procédure, de la pertinence de l'information pour ce rôle et de la confiance qu'elle inspire (§ 23 à 26).
Appeal
Decision of the Court of Appeal.
Instance
Court of Appeal decision.

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.

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.