UPC_CFI_361/2025 – Sun Patent Trust v Vivo

Expert Commentary

Order after interim conference Facts 1. The interim conference was held at 29 July 2026. 2. The Judge-Rapporteur (“JR”) had sent a letter with points of discussion on 24 July 2026. The JR 1. Settlement? Parties are still negotiating. 2. Value of the case: the parties agreed total value € 10 million. 3. Recoverable costs: the parties are expected to agree. 4. The JR asked for consolidated documents, setting out operative parts of their requests. 5. Parties would prefer a non-public hearing with respect to FRAND issues. 6. The JR proposes a public hearing on 9 and 10 September 2026, and a non-public hearing on 11 September 2026, and proposes a detailed agenda. 7. Parties have no comment with respect to the JR’s proposal with respect to the main legal points. Comment Textbook preparation by the JR of the oral argument!

Full Decision Text

Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_362/2025 (infringement action) UPC_CFI_001786/2025 (counterclaim for revocation) Decision: Order following the interim conference Date: 30 July 2026 Patent: EP3407524 **CLAIMANT** 1) Sun Patent Trust 437 Madison Avenue, 35th Floor - 10022 - New York - US Represented by Caroline Levesque **DEFENDANTS** 1) Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL Calle Orense 58, Planta 12 C 28020 - Madrid – ES 2) Vivo Tech GmbH Speditionstrasse 21 40221 - Düsseldorf – DE 3) Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd. No. 1, Vivo Road, Chang'an Town 523866 - Dongguan City, Guangdong - CN Represented by Dr Georg Andreas Rauh **PATENT AT ISSUE** Patent no. EP3407524 Proprietor SUN PATENT TRUST **COMPOSITION OF PANEL – FULL PANEL** Presiding judge & Judge-rapporteur Camille Lignières Legally qualified judge Carine Gillet Legally qualified judge Andras Kupecz Technically qualified judge Dennis Kretschmann LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: English **ORDER** Pursuant to Rule 105.5 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP), following the interim conference, the Judge-rapporteur shall issue an an order setting out the decisions taken. In the present case, an online interim conference was held via Webex at 2 pm Paris time on 29 July 2026 and was audio-recorded (Rule 106 RoP). All parties were duly represented by their representatives. Pursuant to Rule 104 (a) RoP, the parties discussed the main issues of the case as identified by the Judge-rapporteur in the brief already sent to them via CMS on 24 July 2026 (the “Brief”) and replied to the questions raised by the Judge-rapporteur regarding the following matters. 1. Possibilities to settle the dispute - R. 104 (d) Both parties are still in negotiation. 2. Value of the case - R. 104 (i) Claimant confirms that it maintains 5 million euros for the infringement action. Defendant does not dispute the amount claimed by the Claimant for the alleged infringement and agrees that the counterclaim should be assigned the same value. Therefore, the Judge-rapporteur will set the total value in dispute to 10 million euros. 3. Recoverable costs - R. 104 (j) and (k) The parties expect to notify the Court of their agreement on the recoverable costs by 28 August 2026. 4. Parties’ requests at the time of the closure of the written procedure The Judge-rapporteur requested that the parties submit a consolidated document setting out the operative parts of their respective requests at the time of the closure of the written procedure. The Claimant has already provided such a document via CMS and the Defendant will provide it by 28/08/2026. 5. Confidentiality issues and Oral hearing Parties: With respect to the FRAND matters, certain materials may contain confidential information. They both have a preference for a non-public hearing. According to the parties, the issues could be presented more effectively if the parties were able to discuss all relevant information openly, including confidential aspects of the case, which would facilitate a fuller and clearer understanding of the subject matter. The Judge-rapporteur foresees the following organisation for the coming oral hearing: (a) Public hearing on 9 and 10 September 2026 (Technical matters); (b) Non-public hearing on 11 September 2026 (FRAND matters, corrective measures and interim award); (c) This approach allows the parties to allocate different members of their teams to the respective hearing days as appropriate. 6. Main legal points - R 104 (a) Parties have no comments on the Judge-rapporteur proposals mentioned in the Brief. In the present case, the Judge-rapporteur considers that the main legal points at issue to be pleaded during the OH are as follows: Claim interpretation Definition of the skilled person: The person skilled in the art is an engineer with a master’s degree, or similar degree, with several years of professional experience in the field of mobile communications. The skilled person is familiar with the already established technologies and standards, in particular the 3GPP specifications for Long Term Evolution (LTE) and LTE-Advanced. Claim 1: Focus on: (a) Feature F1.1.1: roles of the first and second component carriers (b) Features F1.1.1.1, F1.1.1.3: limitation or not to CFI information? (c) Features F1.1.1.3, F1.3.1, F1.3.2: “setting”/ “determining” the PUCCH resource (d) Features F1.1.1.2, F1.2.2: “controlling transmission power” Validity of the patent at issue (EP 524): With a focus on added matter (over the parent application) regarding the “control information for setting the PUCCH resource” in accordance with features F1.1.1.3 and F7.1.3 Infringement Reproduction of claim 1 (Device: a terminal apparatus) and claim 7 (Method) Alleged infringing VIVO products: The accused products are 4G+ compatible devices including, at least, the products specified in HRM Exhibit No 7. 1. Contested by the Defendants (features F1.1.1, F1.1.1.1, F1.1.1.2, F1.1.1.3, F1.2.2, F1.3.1 and F1.3.2.) Injunction and measures (proportionality) - information Interim award (for damages requested by SPT: 5 million EUROS and for costs: 600k EUROS) FRAND matters - Admissibility of the SPT’s Claim A.II - FRAND defence from VIVO: antitrust law (Art. 102 TFEU and CJCE case law: Huawei v ZTE) 7. Timeframe for the Oral Hearing (on 9-10-11 September 2026) Day 1 (9 September, 14h-18h30, PUBLIC) Claim construction, validity, infringement EP 524: Preliminary introduction by the Presiding judge (10 mns) Claim construction (1h30) 40 min for SPT: presentation and interpretation of the patent 40 min for VIVO: reply to the presentation and interpretation of the patent Rebuttals (5 mns each party) - questions from the panel BREAK (20mns) Validity (1h40) 45 mns for VIVO’s argument regarding validity (focus on added matter), 45 mns for SPT’s response on validity (and request to amend the patent) Rebuttals (5 minutes each party) - questions from the panel Alleged infringement (40 mns) 15 min for SPT’s argument regarding infringement, 15 min for VIVO’s response on infringement. Rebuttals: 5 minutes each party - questions from the panel Conclusion (5 minutes each party) of Day 1 Day 2 (10 September, 9h30-17h PUBLIC): Claim construction and validity, infringement EP 468 Claim construction (1h40) 40 min for SPT’s presentation and interpretation of the patent, 40 min for VIVO’s presentation and interpretation of the patent Rebuttals (10 minutes each party) - questions from the panel Morning break (20 mns) Validity (2h15) 1 h for VIVO’s argument regarding validity of the patent, as granted and AR (focus on the novelty over N5 and N6, after a discussion on priority of the rights) Lunch break (1 h 30) 1 h for SPT’s response on validity (and request to amend the patent: focus on AR 4 and AR7) Rebuttals (10 minutes each party) Alleged infringement (1h40) 40 min for SPT’s argument regarding infringement, 40 min for VIVO’s response on infringement. Rebuttals: 10 minutes each party - questions from the panel Conclusion (5 minutes each party) of Day 2 Day 3 (11 September 9h30-16h30): FRAND, Measures and Interim award (CFI 361 and CFI 362) NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC Morning: 9h30 - 12h30 - Admissibility of Claim A.II FRAND DEFENCE Lunch break (1h30) Afternoon: 14h-16h30 Rebuttals: 30 minutes each party - question from the panel on FRAND matters Measures (proportionality) Interim award (damages and costs) Conclusion 8. Practical modalities Concerning all practical modalities, a Communication is sent via CMS on the date of the present order (regarding the booklet for the pleadings, the list of attendees, etc.) In this context, the Judge-rapporteur orders that: 1. The value of the infringement action UPC_CFI_361/2025 is set to 5 million € and the counterclaim also to a value of 5 million €, resulting in a total of 10 million €. 2. The parties shall submit via CMS, by 28 August 2026: (a) a consolidated document setting out the operative parts of their respective requests at the time of the closure of the written procedure, (b) a confirmation of their agreement regarding the amount of the recoverable costs. Issued in Paris, on 30 July 2026. C. Lignières, Judge-rapporteur. **ORDER DETAILS** UPC number: UPC_CFI_362/2025 (main proceedings) and UPC_CFI_001786/2025 (counterclaim) Action type: Infringement Action Order type: R 105.5 RoP Date of issue: 30 July 2026

Key Holdings

• An interim conference was held to manage the case progression.
• Parties are engaged in settlement negotiations and have agreed on a total case value of €10 million.
• The Judge-Rapporteur requested consolidated documents and proposed a detailed agenda for upcoming hearings.
• A combination of public and non-public hearings was proposed to address FRAND-related issues.
• The Judge-Rapporteur's thorough preparation for oral arguments was highlighted.

Tags

• Interim Conference
• Case Management
• Settlement Negotiations
• Case Valuation
• Costs
• FRAND
• Oral Hearing

Related Cases

• UPC_CFI_583/2025 – Bostik v Henkel
• UPC_CFI_808/2025 – Guardant Health v Sophia Genetics
• UPC_CFI_813/2024_Mar24_Saisie – Tiru v Maquin
• UPC_CFI_163/2024_May23_Infringement – Hurom v NUC
• UPC_CFI_813/2024 – Tiru v Maquin