UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 361/2025

Apr 23, 2025·EP3852468 Unitary patentSEP · DETERMINISTIC UE BEHAVIOUR FOR CSI/SRS REPORTING DURING DRX

Follow
Case details
Status
Interim Phase (Claim dismissed)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
  • Georg Rauh
Division
Paris LD
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Digital communication
Language
English
First decided
Oct 30, 2025
Last decision
Jul 30, 2026
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Infringement foundMedian days to first decision
All UPC53% (62/117)124
Paris LDLockedLocked
Judge Camille LignièresLockedLocked
Judge András KupeczLockedLocked
Judge Carine GilletLockedLocked
Judge Dennis KretschmannLockedLocked

At the UPC: Sun Patent Trust (31 cases)·vivo Group (18 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 7 other proceedings

UPC CFI 1785/2025·UPC CoA 904/2025·UPC CoA 905/2025·UPC CoA 759/2025·UPC CoA 755/2025 and 2 more

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Paris LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-07-30
    InfringementPublic

    Summary: Order of the Paris Local Division following the interim conference under R. 105.5 RoP. The judge-rapporteur recorded that the parties remain in settlement negotiations, set the value of the infringement action at EUR 5,000,000 and the counterclaim for revocation at EUR 5,000,000 (EUR 10,000,000 in total), fixed the structure and timetable of the three-day oral hearing on 9-11 September 2026, and directed the parties to file a consolidated statement of their operative requests and confirmation of the agreed recoverable costs by 28 August 2026.

    Show the legal issues (4)
    • interim conference orders (R. 105.5 RoP)
    • value of the proceedings (R. 104(i) RoP)
    • structure and timetable of the oral hearing
    • FRAND defence to be heard in closed session
  • 2026-05-22
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The judge-rapporteur amended the oral hearing dates to 9-11 September 2026 and ordered the parties' representatives to file a summary submission of maximum 50 pages by 21 July 2026. No substantive patent ruling was made.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • oral hearing scheduling
    • FRAND matters
    • procedural timetable amendment
  • 2025-10-30
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Paris Local Division (full panel: Lignieres, Kupecz, Gillet) rejected Vivo's preliminary objection challenging UPC jurisdiction and the internal competence of the Paris Local Division in Sun Patent Trust's SEP/FRAND infringement action concerning EP 3 852 468. The Court held that UPC jurisdiction is established under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA because an allegedly infringing Vivo product was offered and delivered to a French customer via Fnac.com, constituting a harmful event in France. Vivo's additional argument that only a FRAND defence (not a FRAND main claim) falls within UPC jurisdiction was deferred to the main proceedings under R. 20.2 RoP.

    Show the legal issues (4)
    • UPC jurisdiction and competence of Paris Local Division (Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA)
    • Place of infringement via internet sales
    • FRAND jurisdiction (deferred to merits)
    • Preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP)
  • 2025-07-21
    Application RoP262APublic

    Summary: Procedural order on Sun Patent Trust's application for confidentiality protection (Rules 262.2 and 262A RoP) of highly confidential information in its infringement action against Vivo. The court set conditions for access by Vivo's representatives and named in-house employees to the unredacted statement of claim, rejecting certain overly restrictive constraints proposed by the claimant.

    Show the legal issues (4)
    • Confidentiality protection (Rules 262.2 and 262A RoP)
    • Access to highly confidential information
    • In-house employee access
    • Proportionality
Documents
Show all 1622 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Hearing recording reference document2026-10-08Not public
Decision2026-08-25Not public
Final Order2026-08-25Public
Receipt2026-08-13Not public
Cover sheet2026-08-13Not public
Application document Claimant2026-08-13Not public
Receipt2026-07-31Not public
Cover sheet2026-07-31Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-07-31Not public
Further pleadings2026-07-31Not public
Plain-English summary

Sun Patent Trust brought a SEP/FRAND infringement action against Vivo entities before the Paris Local Division concerning EP 3 852 468. Vivo filed a preliminary objection challenging UPC jurisdiction and Paris LD competence, arguing Sun Patent's FRAND determination request exceeded UPC jurisdiction. The court rejected both objections: jurisdiction was established under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA by a Vivo product purchased on Fnac.com and delivered in France, and the claim was characterised as a primary infringement action with only a conditional FRAND element that falls within established UPC incidental FRAND jurisdiction. The admissibility of the standalone FRAND claim (relief A.II) was deferred to the main proceedings.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • UPC jurisdiction established under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA based on purchase of Vivo product in France via Fnac.com

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA; Art. 7(2) Brussels I Recast Regulation

    Note: Paris LD held that Art. 33(1)(a) must be interpreted consistently with Art. 7(2) Brussels I Recast (place of harmful event); an infringing product offered and delivered to a French customer via Fnac.com constitutes a harmful event in France.

  • Main infringement action (including FRAND-conditional injunction claim) falls within UPC jurisdiction

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 32(1) UPCA

    Note: Court found the main claim is an infringement action; the FRAND condition is anticipatory of a FRAND defence — the UPC can handle FRAND issues incidentally consistent with PANASONIC/OPP caselaw.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • UPC lacks jurisdiction because Sun Patent Trust seeks a FRAND ruling as its main claim, which falls outside UPC jurisdiction

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 32 UPCA

    Reason: Court characterised the claim as primarily an infringement action; the FRAND element is conditional (only if Vivo refuses a FRAND offer is an injunction sought) and anticipates the FRAND defence — UPC has jurisdiction over infringement actions including incidental FRAND issues.

  • Paris Local Division lacks internal competence because no defendant is domiciled in France

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA

    Reason: Art. 33(1)(b) criterion not met, but Art. 33(1)(a) is met: a Vivo group product was purchased on Fnac.com and delivered in France, constituting a harmful event in France sufficient for Paris LD competence.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA interpreted consistently with Art. 7(2) Brussels I Recast (place of harmful event)Online purchase and delivery of infringing product in a member state establishes jurisdiction of that state's local divisionFRAND issues can be dealt with incidentally by UPC in an infringement actionAdmissibility of FRAND main claim (not merely defence) deferred to main proceedings under R. 20.2 RoPUPC jurisdiction covers SEP infringement actions including conditional FRAND injunction claims

Browse other cases on this principle.