Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia (CFI, ORD_34800/2025, 26 August 2025)

Date	26 August 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Paris (FR) Local Division
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_34710/2025 · ORD_34800/2025
Parties	Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

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 an order of 26 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_362/2025, ORD_34800/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division, at the Vivo companies’ request, clarified that the time limits for the preliminary objection and the statement of defence in Sun Patent Trust’s infringement action (EP 3 407 524) run from the confidentiality order of 31 July 2025, despite the appeal against it, and granted an extension limited to three weeks: any preliminary objection by 28 September 2025 and the statement of defence by 28 November 2025.

Question

Does an appeal against a confidentiality order, concerning access by certain individuals to highly confidential FRAND-related information, postpone the start of the defence time limits, and does it justify an extension?

Decision

No, save for a limited extension. The provisional order of 3 July 2025 had made the final order, issued on 31 July 2025, the starting point, and the defendants’ representatives had access to the unredacted file from 3 July. Under Rule 220.2 an appeal has no suspensive effect unless the Court of Appeal decides otherwise under Rule 223, it rejected the application for suspensive effect as inadmissible on 15 August 2025 and as unfounded on 25 August 2025 (UPC_CoA_758/2025). Extensions under Rule 9.3(a) are granted strictly: the appeal concerns only the highly confidential FRAND-related information, not the preliminary objection, validity or the alleged infringing acts. Vivo’s voluntary postponement of access for three individuals justifies three weeks.

Key points for practice

Practical point: a dispute over the confidentiality club does not freeze the defence time limits, the party concerned should promptly seek a targeted extension.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Art. 58
Rules of Procedure: Rules 9.1, 9.3(a), 19, 23, 220.2, 223, 262A and 333
Case law cited: Sun Patent Trust v Vivo, Court of Appeal, 15 August 2025 and 25 August 2025 (UPC_CoA_758/2025)

Related decisions

Vivo Tech, 26 August 2025, identical order in the parallel action (UPC_CFI_361/2025, EP 3 852 468).

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.

Going further

Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantVivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.21 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantVivo Tech GmbH21 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantVivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL20 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

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Les délais de défense courent depuis l'ordonnance de confidentialité du 31 juillet 2025, l'appel n'étant pas suspensif, mais sont prorogés de trois semaines.
Appeal: No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
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
EP 3 852 468 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia (CFI, ORD_34798/2025, 26 August 2025) cited in this record
Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CoA, 25 August 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
`EP 3 852 468` Deterministic UE behaviour for CSI/SRS reporting during DRX recorded proprietor: Sun Patent Trust Inc	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 11 other decision(s): Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CFI, UPC_CFI_361/2025, 3 · 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 (CoA, 23 September 2025) · Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia (CFI, ORD_34798/20 · Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CoA, 25 August 2025) · Vivo Tech v Sun Patent Trust (CoA, 25 August 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.