Short Summary
Sun Patent Trust filed an infringement action against three Vivo entities concerning European Patent EP3407524 before the Paris Local Division. Concurrently, Sun Patent Trust sought to classify certain information in its Statement of Claim and supporting Exhibits as confidential and highly confidential under Article 58 UPCA and Rule 262A RoP. The court issued a procedural order defining the scope of confidentiality protection, restricting access to confidential and highly confidential information to specific named representatives, legal teams, and limited employees of the Vivo defendants.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order concerns the protection of confidential information in infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_362/2025) before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, involving European Patent EP3407524 owned by Sun Patent Trust. Sun Patent Trust (the Claimant), represented by Caroline Levesque, filed an infringement action against three Vivo entities: Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL (Spain), Vivo Tech GmbH (Germany), and Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd. (China), all represented by Dr. Georg Andreas Rauh.
The Claimant concurrently lodged an application under R.262.2 and an application under R.262A RoP concerning certain parts of the Statement of Claim (SoC) and supporting Exhibits (Request 1 on 18 April 2025), and later amended its confidentiality application under R.262A (Request 2 on 13 June 2025). The Defendants were served with a redacted version of the SoC and requested postponement of deadlines until their representatives could access the unredacted version.
A case management meeting was held on 30 June 2025, and by order of 3 July 2025, the judge rapporteur ordered that Defendants' representatives (only) have access to the Highly Confidential Information contained in the redacted Statement of Claims and related Exhibits, with restrictions on disclosure to Vivo or third parties. The Defendants provided comments on the 262A application on 10 July 2025, and the Claimant replied on 12 July 2025.
The Claimant requested, as a principal claim, that certain information be classified as confidential (marked in grey) and highly confidential (marked in blue), with access to the unredacted version restricted to: (a) the Defendants' authorized representative and legal team; (b) external experts (excluding lawyers instructed in a legal capacity) who are not employees of the Defendants or any entity that is a licensee or licensor of cellular standard essential patents; and (c) named employees of the Defendants. As an alternative claim, the Claimant proposed that access to highly confidential information be limited to no more than three employees of the Defendants, two at least being in-house legal counsel or patent attorneys, with restrictions on participating in licensing negotiations for two years.
The panel addressed several issues. Regarding external experts, the panel noted that while external experts may be part of a confidentiality club, this requires clear accountability (citing LD Düsseldorf, 15 July 2025, UPC_CFI_181/2025) and should be requested via a further specific application. The panel rejected a general request admitting external experts at this stage. Regarding destruction of materials, the panel found that ordering destruction of all materials containing confidential/highly confidential information was not necessary at this stage, as the parties are responsible for the effectiveness of protection. Regarding attendees of oral hearings, the panel noted that exclusion of the public is governed by Rules 105.2 and 115 RoP, to be discussed during the interim procedure.
The panel ordered that: (I) Confidential information access on the Vivo side is restricted to Dr. Georg Rauh (attorney-at-law), his legal team involved in the proceedings, and employees of the Defendants who have signed the NDA, to be named by the Defendants; (II) Highly confidential information access is restricted to Dr. Georg Rauh, his legal team, and three named natural persons (employees of Vivo); (III) The classified information shall not be used or disclosed outside these court proceedings except under specified conditions; (IV) The Court may impose a penalty payment for each culpable breach; and (V) Dr. Georg Rauh would be liable for any breach of confidentiality by members of his team to whom he has granted access. The order may be appealed under Rule 220.2 RoP.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Paris (FR) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Sun Patent Trust vs Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, and Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
FUJIFILM CorporationvsKodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
FUJIFILM Corporation sought panel review of a court order rejecting its request for an enforcement warning against three Kodak entities in proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 511 174. The Mannheim Local Division rejected the review request, holding that the judge-rapporteur had correctly applied the legal standards and that the claimant should have raised its concerns via an appeal against the main decision rather than through a panel review. The claimant was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and Plant-e B.V.vsArkyne Technologies S.L.
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) ruled that European Patent EP 2 137 782, owned by Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and relating to a device and method for converting light energy into electrical energy using living plants, is valid and infringed by Arkyne Technologies S.L. (trading as Bioo). The court found infringement by equivalence and ordered Bioo to cease infringing activities, provide information, publish a recall notice on its website, pay provisional damages of EUR 35,000, and pay penalties for any further infringement.
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc., Luxendo GmbH, Bruker Nederland B.V.vs10x Genomics, Inc., NanoString Technologies Inc. (Kostenfestsetzung)
This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings UPC_CFI_2/2023. The applicants (Bruker entities) sought cost assessment of €337,431.50 following the Court of Appeal's dismissal of the respondents' (10x Genomics and NanoString) application for interim measures. The court held that cost assessment proceedings are admissible following interim measures proceedings where the Court of Appeal has made a cost decision under Rule 242.1 EPGVerfO, and ordered the respondents to pay the assessed costs.
Juul Labs International Inc.vsNJOY Netherlands B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted Juul Labs' application to stay appeal proceedings in a revocation action concerning EP 3 504 990, pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal. Both parties agreed to the stay, and the EPO Boards of Appeal had accelerated their proceedings with oral hearings scheduled for 14 November 2025, which the court found would result in a decision before or shortly after the expected date of the Court of Appeal oral hearing.
Microsoft CorporationvsSuinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
The provided judgment text contains only digital signatures of the presiding judges (Peter Hendrik Blok and Emmanuel, Lucien, René Gougé) dated 12 July 2025, with no substantive content, facts, arguments, or reasoning available for analysis.
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.