UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: —

UPC_CFI_361/2025

DETERMINISTIC UE BEHAVIOUR FOR CSI/SRS REPORTING DURING DRX

InfringementMain Infringement ActionParis LDInfringement Action—
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
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.