Opens in a new tab

Vivo Mobile Communication v Sun Patent Trust (CoA, 27 November 2025)

Date27 November 2025
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionGeneric Order
Case number(s)UPC_CoA_904/2025;UPC_CoA_905/2025
Registry referenceUPC-COA-0000904/2025 · UPC-COA-0000905/2025
PartiesVivo Mobile Communication Co, Ltd, Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL v. Sun Patent Trust

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 · 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

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
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_904/2025 official number
  • UPC_CoA_905/2025 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. 27 November 2025 Vivo Mobile Communication v Sun Patent Trust (CoA, 27 November 2025) Generic Order · UPC_CoA_904/2025, UPC_CoA_905/2025
  2. 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

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.