Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile (UPC_CoA_759/2025 & UPC_CoA_758/2025)
Decision date:
25 August 2025
Osborne Clarke summary
- In these proceedings, Sun Patent brought an infringement action in the Paris LD claiming, among other things, that the terms of a licence to the patent at issue offered by Sun Patent to Vivo were FRAND. On the same day, Sun Patent filed an application for protection of confidential information under Rule 262A RoP, requesting that the access to the unredacted version of its statement of claim and relevant exhibits containing "highly confidential information" be restricted to certain persons (Vivo's legal representatives and, under certain conditions, no more than three Vivo employees). Sun Patent subsequently limited its request, asking the court to exclude Vivo employees from having access to the highly confidential information.
- The Paris LD restricted access to the highly confidential information to specific persons, including three Vivo employees. The Paris LD also granted leave to appeal. Sun Patent applied for suspensive effect under Rule 223.4 RoP. It also subsequently lodged a statement of appeal under Rule 220.2 RoP, requesting that the unredacted documents not be accessible to Vivo's employees or, in the alternative, the three employees shall not participate in or advise on any licensing negotiations with counterparties to the disclosed licences or related agreements for a certain period of time. Sun Patent argued that the suspensive effect should be granted because the appeal would become pointless if the highly confidential information was disclosed to Vivo's employees and therefore suspensive effect was necessary to safeguard Sun Patent's right to be heard and to a fair trial.
- The Court of Appeal found that Sun Patent's application for suspensive effect was not well founded and refused to suspend the Paris LD's order giving three of Vivo's employees access to the unredacted documents, pending Sun's appeal against the terms of the order.
- The Court of Appeal noted that suspending an order pending appeal is exceptional, and disagreed that giving access to the highly confidential information in the meantime would make the appeal pointless. It stated that the employees were duty bound not to use or disclose the highly confidential information for any purpose other than these court proceedings and could be sanctioned by the court with a penalty payment for breach of that duty.
- The Court of Appeal held that Sun Patent had not demonstrated any other facts or circumstances that could justify the suspensive effect. It noted that even if the disclosure to Vivo's employees would undermine the purpose of the appeal to some extent, Sun Patent had not shown that its interests in excluding the three employees outweighed Vivo's interests in granting them immediate access, given the deadlines Vivo faced for filing its written submissions and the relevance of the highly confidential information to those submissions.
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.