Vivo Mobile Communication v Sun Patent Trust (CoA, 27 November 2025)
| Date | 27 November 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Generic Order |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CoA_904/2025;UPC_CoA_905/2025 |
| Registry reference | UPC-COA-0000904/2025 · UPC-COA-0000905/2025 |
| Parties | Vivo Mobile Communication Co, Ltd, Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL v. Sun Patent Trust |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Case timeline
- 16 March 2026 : Vivo Mobile Communication v Sun Patent Trust (CoA, 16 March 2026) UPC-COA-0000904/2025 · UPC-COA-0000905/2025
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
In an order of 27 November 2025 (UPC_CoA_904/2025 and UPC_CoA_905/2025), the Court of Appeal rejected Vivo’s request to stay the proceedings brought by Sun Patent Trust before the Paris Local Division, or alternatively to extend the deadline for the statement of defence, pending its appeal against the dismissal of its preliminary objection. The order confirms that a stay under Rule 21.2 remains exceptional, even where the jurisdictional question raised is novel.
Question
Should the Court of Appeal stay the first instance proceedings, or extend the deadline for the defence, pending an appeal against a decision dismissing a preliminary objection?
Decision
The request was rejected. A stay requires exceptional circumstances, assessed by reference to the stage of both sets of proceedings and the parties’ interests (paragraph 12). That the jurisdictional question is new and debated in the literature is not enough (paragraph 13). With the deadline close, the defence is largely prepared, and Vivo’s interest in avoiding costs does not outweigh Sun Patent Trust’s interest in a decision without undue delay (paragraphs 14 and 15). Extensions of time are primarily a matter for the Court of First Instance, which is better placed to manage the case, and Vivo did not show that it had exceeded its discretion (paragraphs 16 and 17).
Key points for practice
- An appeal against a decision on a preliminary objection does not suspend the deadline for the statement of defence. A stay under Rule 21.2 requires exceptional circumstances (paragraphs 10 to 12).
- Practical point: a request to extend time should first be made to the first instance division, the Court of Appeal reviewing only whether it exceeded its case management discretion (paragraphs 16 and 17).
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Art. 32(1) and Art. 73(2)(a)
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 9.3, 19, 20.2, 21, 220.2 and 333
- Case law cited
- Mala v Nokia, Court of Appeal, 21 June 2024, Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication, Court of Appeal, 31 October 2025
Related decisions
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
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
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.
Parties
- defendantSun Patent Trust25 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantVivo Mobile Communication Co, Ltd.21 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantVivo Tech GmbH21 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantVivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL20 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
- 27 November 2025 Vivo Mobile Communication v Sun Patent Trust (CoA, 27 November 2025) Generic Order · UPC_CoA_904/2025, UPC_CoA_905/2025
- 16 March 2026 Vivo Mobile Communication v Sun Patent Trust (CoA, 16 March 2026) Appeal RoP220.2 · UPC_CoA_904/2025, UPC_CoA_905/2025 · 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.
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Generic Order
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La cour d'appel refuse de suspendre la procédure devant la division locale de Paris et de proroger le délai de défense pendant l'appel de Vivo contre le rejet de son exception préliminaire.
- Appeal
- Decision of the Court of Appeal.
- Instance
- Court of Appeal decision.
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Vivo Mobile Communication v Sun Patent Trust (CoA, 16 March 2026) cited in this record
- Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CoA, UPC_CoA_757/2025, 31 October 2025) cited in this record
- Mala v Nokia (CoA, 21 June 2024) cited in this 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.