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.
Background: 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.
Decision: 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
Labrador Diagnostics LLCvsbioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Portugal Lda., and bioMérieux Benelux BV
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 756 767 B1. The court exercised its discretion under Article 33(3)(b) UPCA to refer the counterclaim for revocation to the Milan Central Division, where a revocation action was already pending, while proceeding with the infringement action. The Claimant requested the referral and the Defendants did not object, leading the Panel to treat the matter as a unanimous request.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd.vsLONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd., LONGI SOLAR FRANCE SARL., Soltech Energy GbR, Longi (Netherlands) Trading B.V., and Energy3000 solar GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning an infringement action related to European patent no. 4 372 829. The order addresses the service of the statement of claim on Defendant 2 (LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd.) and extends the deadline for Defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 to lodge their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for revocation until 21 July 2025, following an agreement between the parties.
Barco NVvsYealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court in infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 732 827. Yealink filed a Preliminary Objection under R. 19 RoP challenging the territorial competence of the LD Brussels under Article 33(1)(a) UPCA. Because the same territorial competence issue was already the subject of a cross-appeal pending before the UPC Court of Appeal in case UPC_CoA_317/2025, the Court stayed the Preliminary Objection proceedings until the Court of Appeal issues its decision, and set a schedule for post-decision comments.
Dolle A/SvsFAKRO Dachflächenfenster GmbH & Co. KG et al.
This case before the Local Chamber Hamburg concerned European Patent EP 2 476 814 B1, which protects a loft/attic staircase (Dachbodentreppe). Dolle A/S, the patent proprietor, sued four FAKRO group companies for infringement regarding the 'GREENSTEP LME Energy Efficient' and 'GREENSTEP LMT Super Thermo' products, while the defendants counterclaimed for revocation. The court largely upheld the infringement claim, dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, and ordered injunctive relief, information, recall, destruction, and damages, with the defendants bearing 90% of the costs of the main action.
Viking Arm ASvsStanley Black & Decker Sweden AB, Stanley Black & Decker Inc., and Stanley Black & Decker Deutschland GmbH
Viking Arm AS filed an infringement action against three Stanley Black & Decker entities concerning European Patent EP3953541, and the defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. Both parties subsequently agreed to withdraw their respective actions, and the court declared the proceedings closed without issuing a costs decision.
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.