Apple Inc (intervener) in Sun Patent Trust v Vivo (UPC_CoA_755/2025 and UPC_CoA_757/2025)
Decision date:
23 September 2025
Osborne Clarke summary
- This decision from the Court of Appeal concerned an application by Apple to intervene in these proceedings between Sun Patent and various Vivo entities.
- In April 2025, Sun Patent brought two actions against Vivo in the Paris LD for infringement, claiming inter alia that the terms of a licence to the patents at issue offered by Sun Patent to Vivo are FRAND. On the same day, Sun Patent also filed an application for protection of confidential information under Rule 262A RoP, requesting that access to the unredacted version of its statement of claim and relevant exhibits containing "highly confidential information" be restricted to certain persons, including Vivo's legal representatives and, under certain conditions, no more than three Vivo employees. Sun Patent subsequently limited its request, asking the court not to allow Vivo's employees access and to limit the confidentiality regime to "external eyes only".
- The Paris LD restricted access to the highly confidential information to certain persons, including three Vivo employees and rejected Sun Patent's "external eyes only" regime request.
- Sun Patent lodged an appeal against the Paris LD's decision and Apple lodged an application to intervene in the appeal pursuant to Rule 313 RoP. Apple argued that the agreements between it and Sun Patent, submitted in the UPC proceedings, contained highly sensitive business information and that disclosure to Vivo's employees would be to Apple's commercial detriment and could lead to Vivo having an undue advantage. Vivo argued that Apple's application to intervene was inadmissible as it has no legal interest in the result of the proceedings.
- The Court of Appeal allowed Apple's application and admitted it as an intervener. The Court of Appeal followed a previous decision in which Apple sought to intervene in proceedings, holding that the RoP do not require that Apple has an interest in the final outcome of the proceedings. It is sufficient to establish a legal interest that Sun Patent's statement of claim and exhibits contain Apple's confidential information.
- Whether Apple's concerns regarding the confidentiality regime are well-founded and sufficient to grant the orders sought by Sun Patent was left to be decided in the appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal.
Issue
Curious about how UPC decisions might impact your business? Have questions about the UPC?
Reach out to our patents team for expert guidance and support.