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
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
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.