Short Summary
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order on 23 September 2025 admitting Apple Inc. as an intervener in appeal proceedings concerning the confidentiality regime for highly confidential information (HCI). The appeals arose from Sun Patent Trust's infringement actions against Vivo, where the Paris Local Division had permitted three Vivo employees to access HCI. The Court held that Apple had a legal interest in the outcome because the HCI included information on agreements between Apple and Sun Patent, and that the potential revocation of the impugned orders could prevent further access and use of such information.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order concerns Apple Inc.'s application to intervene under R. 313 RoP in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court.
On 18 April 2025, Sun Patent Trust brought two patent infringement actions against Vivo Mobile Communication Co. Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, and Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL before the Paris Local Division, asserting that the terms of a licence offered to Vivo were fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND). On the same day, Sun Patent filed an application for protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP, seeking to restrict access to highly confidential information (HCI) to certain persons, including Vivo's legal representatives and up to three Vivo employees. Sun Patent subsequently limited its request to an 'External Eyes Only' (EEO) regime, seeking to exclude Vivo employees entirely.
On 31 July 2025, the Paris Local Division issued two impugned orders (ORD_33179/2025 and ORD_33183/2025) restricting access to confidential and highly confidential information to specific persons, including three Vivo employees. Sun Patent appealed these orders (APL_34965/2025 UPC_CoA_755/2025 and APL_34967/2025 UPC_CoA_757/2025), requesting that the HCI not be accessible to Vivo's employees, or alternatively, that access be limited to no more than three Vivo employees who would not participate in licensing negotiations for a certain period.
Apple's Application to Intervene: Apple Inc. sought to intervene in support of Sun Patent's position, requesting (i) admission as an intervener supporting an attorney's eyes only (AEO) or EEO confidentiality regime for Apple's confidential information, or alternatively a stricter regime with measures such as a licensing bar, (ii) 15 days to lodge a Statement of Intervention after the judge-rapporteur's decision on admissibility, and (iii) permission to participate in the oral hearing. Apple argued that agreements between Sun Patent and Apple containing highly sensitive business information had been submitted in the UPC proceedings and could be disclosed to Vivo to Apple's commercial detriment, potentially giving Vivo an undue advantage.
Vivo's Opposition: Vivo argued that the application to intervene should be rejected as inadmissible. It contended that R. 313.1 RoP requires a legal interest that can still be realised through intervention, meaning the result of the proceedings must still be capable of being influenced. Since the three designated Vivo employees had already accessed the HCI pursuant to the impugned order, Apple no longer had a present legal interest.
Court's Reasoning: The Court, applying R. 313.1 and R. 313.2 RoP, held that Apple's applications for intervention were admissible. The Court found that Apple had a direct and present interest in the outcome of the appeals because the confidential information at issue included information on agreements between Apple and Sun Patent. The fact that HCI may have already been made accessible to the three designated Vivo employees did not exclude Apple's legal interest. The Court reasoned that if the Court of Appeal revoked the impugned orders, those employees would no longer have access to or be allowed to use the unredacted version of the statement of claim and relevant exhibits containing Apple's confidential information, as well as any further exchange of submissions. The Court further noted that whether Apple's specific concerns about the confidentiality regime were well-founded would be decided in the final orders in the appeal proceedings, but the fact that Apple was a party to the agreements was sufficient to admit intervention.
The Court ordered that (I) Apple is admitted as an intervener in the appeal proceedings in support of Sun Patent's appeal and requests to the extent that Apple's confidential information is concerned; (II) Apple is given 15 days from service of the order to file a Statement in Intervention; (III) Sun Patent and Vivo will have 15 days from service of Apple's Statement in Intervention to respond; and (IV) Apple will be allowed to participate in the oral hearing to support Sun Patent. The order was issued on 23 September 2025 by Panel 1a, comprising presiding judge Klaus Grabinski, judge-rapporteur Emmanuel Gougé, and judge Peter Blok.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in APPLE Inc. (intervener) in Sun Patent Trust vs Vivo Mobile Communication Co.,Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong Technology Development Co., LtdvsRespondent
The Claimant filed an infringement action against five Defendants concerning European patent EP 3 297 043 B1 before the Local Division Munich. The Claimant and Defendants 1 to 4 jointly requested a stay of proceedings due to ongoing settlement negotiations, and the Claimant also sought a stay regarding Defendant 5. The Court granted the stay under Rules 295(d) and 295(m) RoP, extended the time limit for filing the Statement of defence to five months, and ordered the parties to inform the Court if a settlement is reached.
PowerDeal SRLvsRespondent
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns an application for rectification under Rule 353 RoP filed in connection with infringement and counterclaim for revocation proceedings regarding European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1. The claimant, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., sought rectification of a prior order concerning the protection of confidential information. The court dismissed the application, finding no obvious slip or clerical mistake, as the unredacted version of the order correctly contained the name of a natural person of Defendant 7 (PowerDeal SRL) to whom access was granted, while only the redacted version had that name replaced with '[…]'.
Occlutech GmbHvsLepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. a.o.
Occlutech GmbH, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 387 951 B1 covering a braided implantable occlusion device, sought provisional measures against Lepu Medical entities for alleged infringement with their 'MemoCarna ASD' and 'MemoCarna VSD' devices. The Local Division Hamburg held that the Defendants' recent CE-mark approval, combined with their public marketing activities and trade fair participation, established imminent infringement and territorial jurisdiction in Germany. The court granted the preliminary injunction, ordering the Defendants to cease and desist from offering, placing on the market, or using the infringing devices in Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Ireland, with a penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per non-compliance.
Prozessbevollmächtigte:vsRespondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg concerning a request for correction of a prior patent infringement decision dated May 6, 2026, relating to EP 4 117 857 B1. The defendant, Magna-Tec e.K., filed eleven specific correction requests under R. 353 of the Rules of Procedure, seeking to fix typographical errors, incomplete statements, and obvious oversights in the earlier decision. The court partially granted the correction request, finding that some of the identified discrepancies clearly deviated from the court's actual intent at the time of the original decision.
Sun Patent TrustvsVivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Vivo Mobile Communication entities (respondents in the appeal) requested the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court to stay the first instance infringement proceedings and/or extend the time limit for filing their Statement of Defense and Counterclaim for Revocation, pending the outcome of a confidentiality appeal and a preliminary objection challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over a FRAND rate determination claim. The Court of Appeal rejected the request, holding that R. 21.2 RoP did not apply because the pending appeal was not against a decision on a preliminary objection, and that as a general rule it is not for the Court of Appeal to decide on stays or time extensions in proceedings pending before the Court of First Instance.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.