- within Intellectual Property topic(s)
1. Key takeaways
Intervention by a third party is admissible if a direct legal interest in the appeal's outcome is established (R. 313 RoP)
The Applicant was permitted to intervene in the appeal proceedings because confidential information about its business agreements was at risk of disclosure due to the contested orders. The Court found that the Applicant's interest in protecting its sensitive information was sufficient to establish a legal interest in the outcome of the appeal.
The confidentiality regime for third-party information can be challenged by affected parties (R. 262A, R. 263 RoP)
The Claimant sought to restrict access to highly confidential information to external counsel only, excluding employees of the Respondent. The Applicant, as a third party whose information was included, supported this stricter regime and challenged the initial order that allowed access to employees of the Respondent.
2. Division
Court of Appeal
3. UPC number
UPC_CoA_755/2025, UPC_CoA_757/2025
4. Type of proceedings
Appeal against procedural orders regarding confidentiality and intervention
5. Parties
Applicant/Intervener: Apple Inc.
Appellant/Claimant: Sun Patent Trust
Respondents/Defendants: Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.; Vivo
Tech GmbH; Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
6. Patent(s)
EP 3 407 524, EP 3 852 468
7. Jurisdictions
UPC
8. Body of legislation / Rules
R. 313 RoP, R. 314 RoP, R. 315 RoP, R. 262A RoP, R. 263 RoP
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
