Short Summary
This is a procedural order issued by the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action brought by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo entities concerning European Patent EP3407524. The order amends the dates for the Oral Hearing, scheduling it for 9-11 September 2026, and sets a deadline of 21 July 2026 for the parties' representatives to file summary submissions of a maximum of 50 pages.
Detailed Summary
This Procedural Order (UPC_CFI_362/2025) was issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Paris Local Division, on 22 May 2026, by Judge-rapporteur Camille Lignières. The claimant is Sun Patent Trust, a US entity based in New York, represented by Caroline Levesque. The defendants are three Vivo-related entities: (1) Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL (Spain), (2) Vivo Tech GmbH (Germany), and (3) Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd. (China), all represented by Dr Georg Andreas Rauh. The patent at issue is European Patent No. EP3407524, owned by Sun Patent Trust. The action is an Infringement Action (ACT_18934/2025), and the language of proceedings is English.
Following an online case management meeting held on 21 May 2026 with the parties' representatives, the Judge-rapporteur issued this order to amend the previously scheduled dates for the Oral Hearing (as set in the Order of 16/01/2026). The new hearing dates are: 9 September 2026 at 2 pm Paris time, to be held in person at the UPC Paris Local Division (5 rue Saint-Germain l'Auxerrois, 75001 Paris), and 10 and 11 September 2026 at 9:30 am Paris time, to be held in person at the Tribunal des activités économiques de Paris, salle internationale (1 Quai de la Corse, 75004 Paris). Additionally, the order requires the parties' representatives to file a summary submission, including their main arguments already in the debate at the time of the closing of the written procedure and updated claims regarding the technical part and the FRAND matters, of a maximum of 50 pages (police 12, Calibri), by 21 July 2026.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Paris 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
Amgen Inc.vsSanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Plant-e, Plant-e KnowledgevsArkyne Technologies S.L.
Unified Patent Court decision.
BMS Innovations, LLCvsBYD Company Ltd et al.
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) ruled on BYD's application under Rule 158 RoP for security for costs in an infringement action concerning EP3393001. The court ordered BMS Innovations, LLC (BMSI) to provide security of EUR 350,000 for BYD's legal costs and expenses, to be furnished within four weeks of service of the order, failing which a default decision may be issued under Rule 355 RoP.
Panasonic Holdings CorporationvsXiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others
This is an order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning EP 2 568 724, a standard-essential patent (SEP). Panasonic Holdings Corporation, the plaintiff, sought a court order directing itself to produce two specific license agreements, as it was prevented from voluntarily submitting them due to confidentiality clauses. The court ordered the production of both license agreements, allowing redactions of passages not relied upon by Panasonic in its factual allegations and legal arguments, while rejecting further requests.
NanoString Technologies Europe LimitedvsPresident and Fellows of Harvard College
Unified Patent Court 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.