UPC CFI 361/2025
—·EP3852468 +1 more: DETERMINISTIC UE BEHAVIOUR FOR CSI/SRS REPORTING DURING DRX
- Case details
- Status—ActionInfringementCategoryMain Infringement Action
- Parties
- RespondentsReps: Georg Andreas Rauh
- Division
- Paris LD
- Judges
- Camille Lignieres · Presiding Judge / Judge-Rapporteur
- Carine Gillet · Legally Qualified Judge
- Andras Kupecz · Legally Qualified Judge
- Technology
- Telecoms · 5G/NR · Telecommunications
- Language
- —
- First decided
- Oct 30, 2025
- Last decision
- May 22, 2026
- 2026-05-22Infringement Action
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.
Legal issues:oral hearing schedulingFRAND mattersprocedural timetable amendment - 2025-10-30DismissedInfringement meritsInfringement Action
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.
Legal issues:UPC jurisdiction and competence of Paris Local Division (Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA)Place of infringement via internet salesFRAND jurisdiction (deferred to merits)Preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP) - 2025-07-21Application RoP262A
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.
Legal issues:Confidentiality protection (Rules 262.2 and 262A RoP)Access to highly confidential informationIn-house employee accessProportionality
- FF26DBD3EA3A61CF9C5269CDA83A1B08_en.pdf2025-07-21ENGLISH
- LD%20Paris%20UPC_CFI_361_2025%2030-10-2025.pdf2025-10-30ENGLISH
- procedural%20order%2022%20May%202026%20%20CFI361%20signedCL.pdf2026-05-22EN
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.
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 RegulationNote: 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) UPCANote: 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.
UPC lacks jurisdiction because Sun Patent Trust seeks a FRAND ruling as its main claim, which falls outside UPC jurisdiction
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 32 UPCAReason: 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) UPCAReason: 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.
Browse other cases on this principle.