Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CoA, 25 August 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 25 August 2025 (UPC_CoA_758/2025, App_34971/2025), the Court of Appeal rejected Sun Patent Trust’s application for suspensive effect against the Paris Local Division’s order of 31 July 2025 which, in its infringement action against the Vivo companies on EP 3 407 524, gave three Vivo employees access to highly confidential information on FRAND licensing terms. The application is admissible despite Rule 223.5, but the appeal would not become devoid of purpose without suspensive effect.

Question

Does Rule 223.5 exclude suspensive effect for an appeal against an order brought with leave (Rule 220.2), and does access by the opponent’s employees to highly confidential information render the appeal devoid of purpose?

Decision

The application is admissible: the exclusion in Rule 223.5 does not bar an application based on Art. 74 UPCA, which takes precedence (paragraphs 12 to 14). It fails on the merits. Suspensive effect is exceptional and requires an order that is manifestly erroneous or an appeal that would otherwise become devoid of purpose (paragraph 16). Neither applies: authorised persons may use the information only for the proceedings, on pain of penalty payments, and no past conduct suggests a risk of breach, if the appeal succeeds, the employees would lose access and any right of use, and the alternative request to bar them from licensing negotiations meets the concern raised (paragraphs 18 to 23). Vivo’s interest in immediate access, given its time limits, prevails (paragraph 24).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: Art. 74 UPCA allows an application for suspensive effect against a confidentiality order, but the proprietor must show a concrete risk, a duty of secrecy backed by penalties being treated as sufficient.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 74

Rules of Procedure

Rules 220.2, 223, in particular 223.4 and 223.5, 262A and 263

Case law cited

ICPillar v ARM, Court of Appeal, 19 June 2024 (UPC_CoA_301/2024), NUC v Warmcook, Court of Appeal, 3 July 2025 (UPC_CoA_435/2025)

Related decisions

• Vivo Mobile Communication Iber, 26 August 2025, Paris Local Division order on the defence time limits, issued the next day in the same action.
• Vivo Tech v Sun Patent Trust, 25 August 2025, order to the same effect in the parallel action on EP 3 852 468 (UPC_CoA_759/2025).

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.