Key takeaways
A stay under R. 21.2 RoP requires an appeal against a preliminary objection decision.
The Court of Appeal denied the appliant’s request to apply R. 21.2 RoP (stay of the proceedings if an appeal is lodged), as the only existing appeal concerned a different matter (confidentiality) and no appeal on the preliminary objection existed. The appeal has to be formally lodged, not merely anticipated or speculated.
R. 21.2 RoP is to be applied strictly.
R. 19 to 21 RoP provide for specific rules for preliminary objections. As they may differ from general rules, such as the rules for staying proceedings (R. 295-298 RoP), these specific provisions are to be applied strictly.
The CoA will only stay the Court of First instance proceedings or extend the time limits under exceptional circumstances.
The Court of Appeal will not, as a general rule, manage first-instance proceedings by ordering a stay (R. 295 RoP) or extending deadlines (R. 9.3 RoP). Such requests must first be brought before the Court of First Instance, which is better informed and has a margin of discretion in managing the case. The Court of Appeal will only intervene in exceptional circumstances. The defendant has to provide justification for not filing the application with the Court of First instance.
Division
Court of Appeal (following a decision before CFI LD Paris)
UPC number
UPC_CoA_755/2025, UPC_CoA_757/2025
Type of proceedings
Appeal Proceedings, Request for stay of proceedings and extension of time limits
Parties
Claimant in CFI proceedings and Appellant before the CoA (on confidentiality order): Sun Patent Trust
Defendants in CFI proceedings, Respondents before the CoA and Applicants (for stay and time extension): Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, and Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Intervener (in the appeal): APPLE Inc.
Patent(s)
EP 3 852 468, EP 3 407 524
Jurisdictions
UPC
Body of legislation / Rules
R. 9.3 RoP, R. 19 RoP, R. 21 RoP, R. 295 RoP
