UPC CoA 757/2025

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

• 2025-10-31
  Public

  Summary: Court of Appeal dismissed Vivo's request to stay the first-instance proceedings (UPC_CFI_361/2025 and UPC_CFI_263/2025) and extend time limits pending the appeal proceedings. The CoA held that R.21.2 RoP (stay in context of preliminary objection appeal) cannot be applied by anticipation before an appeal against the preliminary objection order has been lodged. Under R.295 RoP, the CoA is generally not the appropriate body to decide on stays of first-instance proceedings, as the CFI is better placed to manage its own case.

  Show the legal issues (4)

  • Stay of first-instance proceedings pending appeal (R.21.2, R.295 RoP)
  • Application of R.21.2 RoP only after appeal lodged
  • Court of Appeal's general reluctance to manage first-instance stays
  • FRAND defence and jurisdictional challenge
• 2025-09-23
  Application RoP313Public

  Summary: The Court of Appeal (Panel 1a: Grabinski, Gougé, Blok) admitted Apple Inc. as an intervener in the appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_755/2025 and UPC_CoA_757/2025) brought by Sun Patent Trust against VIVO concerning confidentiality protection orders under R. 262A RoP for EP 3 407 524 and EP 3 852 468. Apple was admitted because it is a party to the confidential licence agreements that VIVO's employees would have access to under the impugned orders, giving Apple a sufficient interest to intervene in support of Sun Patent Trust. Apple was given 15 days to file a Statement in intervention.

  Show the legal issues (4)

  • Intervention in appeal proceedings (R. 313 RoP)
  • Confidentiality protection - access to highly confidential information (R. 262A RoP)
  • Third party rights in confidential licence agreements
  • FRAND licensing and SEP proceedings