Vivo Mobile Communication v Sun Patent Trust (CoA, 16 March 2026)

Date	16 March 2026
Court	CoA
Division	Luxembourg (LU)
Type of action	Appeal RoP220.2
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

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

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 16 March 2026 (UPC_CoA_904/2025 and UPC_CoA_905/2025), the Court of Appeal dismissed Vivo’s appeals against two orders of the Paris Local Division of 30 October 2025 which, in Sun Patent Trust’s infringement actions (EP 3 407 524 and EP 3 852 468), had deferred to the main proceedings the preliminary objection to jurisdiction over the claim for a determination of FRAND terms. The Court accepted that the panel, not only the judge-rapporteur, may order that deferral and found no misuse of discretion.

Question

Could the panel defer to the main proceedings the preliminary objection against the claim for a FRAND determination, and was that deferral a permissible exercise of discretion?

Decision

The court of first instance may decide the objection promptly or deal with it in the main proceedings. That choice lies with the judge-rapporteur or, on referral, with the panel, under Rule 102.1 RoP, applied to the written procedure, and Rule 331 RoP (paragraphs 11 to 15). Appellate review is limited to misuse or excess of discretion (paragraphs 16 and 17). Deferral serves procedural efficiency: infringement is the main issue, the FRAND determination is not an independent claim but a necessary step towards the injunction sought, and the FRAND facts will be argued in the main proceedings in any event through Vivo’s defence (paragraphs 18 to 22).

Key points for practice

Deferring a preliminary objection to the main proceedings is a matter of case management, reviewed only for misuse of discretion.
Practical point: a challenge to the UPC’s jurisdiction to set FRAND terms is likely to be heard with the merits where the determination is a condition of the injunction sought.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Art. 32(1), 33(1) and 41(3)
Rules of Procedure: Rules 19, 20, 102.1 and 331
Case law cited: Volkswagen v Network System Technologies, Court of Appeal, 18 September 2024

Related decisions

Sun Patent Trust v Vivo, 30 October 2025, order under appeal (UPC_CFI_361/2025).
Sun Patent Trust v Vivo, 30 October 2025, order under appeal (UPC_CFI_362/2025).
Vivo v Sun Patent Trust, 27 November 2025, refusal of the request for a stay or extension of time.

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

Vivo Mobile Communication v Sun Patent Trust (CoA, 2025-11-27), 27 November 2025

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

First instance cited in the decision: UPC_CFI_361/2025, UPC_CFI_362/2025

Parties

defendantSun Patent Trust25 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
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

13 October 2025 Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CFI, 13 October 2025) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_362/2025
La demande de report du délai du mémoire en défense est rejetée : l'exception préliminaire d'incompétence sur la question FRAND ne justifie pas de déroger à la règle 19.6.
30 October 2025 Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CFI, UPC_CFI_361/2025, 30 October 2025) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_361/2025
L'exception préliminaire est rejetée : la demande de constat FRAND est accessoire à l'action en contrefaçon et relève de la JUB, sa recevabilité étant renvoyée au fond, et l'achat sur Fnac.com fonde la compétence de la division de Paris.
30 October 2025 Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CFI, UPC_CFI_362/2025, 30 October 2025) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_362/2025
La division locale de Paris rejette l'exception préliminaire de Vivo, retient sa compétence au titre du lieu de la contrefaçon et renvoie au fond la recevabilité de la demande FRAND de Sun Patent Trust.
27 November 2025 Vivo Mobile Communication v Sun Patent Trust (CoA, 27 November 2025) Generic Order · UPC_CoA_904/2025, UPC_CoA_905/2025
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.
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
22 May 2026 Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia (CFI, UPC_CFI_362/2025, 22 May 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_362/2025
La juge rapporteure de la division locale de Paris fixe l'audience aux 9, 10 et 11 septembre 2026 et impose une note de synthèse de 50 pages au plus avant le 21 juillet 2026.
22 May 2026 Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia (CFI, UPC_CFI_361/2025, 22 May 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_361/2025
L'audience est fixée aux 9, 10 et 11 septembre 2026 et les parties déposeront un mémoire récapitulatif de 50 pages au plus d'ici le 21 juillet 2026 incluant les questions FRAND.
30 July 2026 Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CFI, UPC_CFI_362/2025, 30 July 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_362/2025
La juge rapporteure de la division locale de Paris fixe la valeur du litige à 10 millions d'euros et organise une audience publique sur les questions techniques suivie d'une journée à huis clos sur les questions FRAND.
30 July 2026 Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CFI, UPC_CFI_361/2025, 30 July 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_361/2025
La valeur de l'action et celle de la demande reconventionnelle sont fixées à 5 millions d'euros chacune. L'audience de septembre 2026 est scindée, la partie FRAND étant débattue en séance non publique.
25 August 2026 Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CFI, 25 August 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_362/2025
La division locale de Paris autorise le désistement de l'action en contrefaçon de Sun Patent Trust et de la demande reconventionnelle en nullité de Vivo, clôt les procédures et annule l'audience.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Appeal RoP220.2
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): 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.
Appeal: Decision of the Court of Appeal (first instance cited: UPC_CFI_361/2025, UPC_CFI_362/2025).
Instance: Court of Appeal decision.

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

Vivo Mobile Communication v Sun Patent Trust (CoA, 27 November 2025) cited in this record
Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CFI, UPC_CFI_361/2025, 30 October 2025) cited in this record
Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CFI, UPC_CFI_362/2025, 30 October 2025) cited in this record
Volkswagen v Network System Technologies (CoA, 18 September 2024) cited in this record
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v Shenzhen Transsion Holdings (CFI, 15 June 2026) cites this decision

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/ · 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 · Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CFI, 13 October 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
`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/ · 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 Iberia (CFI, ORD_34800/20 · 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.