Key takeaways
A preliminary objection may also be deferred to the main proceedings by the panel, not only by the judge-rapporteur
The Court of Appeal clarifies that a decision under R. 20.2 RoP to deal with a preliminary objection in the main proceedings is not reserved to the judge-rapporteur alone. Where the matter has been referred to the panel, the panel may itself decide that the objection should be addressed together with the merits. The Court thus reads R. 20.2 RoP in the broader framework of the UPC’s case-management rules rather than as conferring an exclusive power on the judge-rapporteur.
The Court of First Instance has broad case-management discretion to defer a preliminary objection, and that discretion was not exceeded here
The Court of Appeal confirms that the Court of First Instance may either decide a preliminary objection promptly or leave it to the main proceedings, depending on what is procedurally appropriate in the concrete case. Appellate review is correspondingly limited. On the facts, the Paris Local Division was entitled to treat the FRAND-related request as sufficiently linked to the infringement action and the requested injunction that the admissibility issue did not have to be decided upfront, but could properly be dealt with in the main proceedings.
Division
Court of Appeal, Panel 1a
UPC number
UPC_CoA_904/2025
UPC_CoA_905/2025
Type of proceedings
Appeal against orders on preliminary objections in patent infringement actions involving FRAND-related claims.
Parties
Appellants / defendants in first instance:
Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.; Vivo Tech GmbH; Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL.
Respondent / claimant in first instance:
Sun Patent Trust.
Patent(s)
EP 3 407 524
EP 3 852 468
Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 32 UPCA
R. 19 RoP
R. 20.2 RoP
R. 102.1 RoP
R. 331 RoP
