2025-10-31 - CoA - Sun Patent Trust v. Vivo - UPC_CoA_755/2025, UPC_CoA_757/2025

• Although, under R. 21.2 RoP, a stay may be granted under exceptional circumstances, this is under the condition that an appeal against a decision or an order on a preliminary objection under R. 21.1 RoP has already been lodged, not by anticipation or speculation of such an appeal. • A strict application of R. 21 RoP follows from the systematics of the Rules of Procedure which, under subsection 2 (R. 19 to 21 RoP), provide for specific provisions concerning the “Procedure when the defendant raises a preliminary objection” which may differ from general provisions, such as the ones applicable to the stay of proceedings under Part 5, Chapter 4 (R. 295 to 298 RoP). • R. 295 RoP refers to the “Court”, which implies that it applies both to the Court of First instance and to the Court of Appeal. As a general rule, it is not for the Court of Appeal to decide on the stay of proceedings pending before the CFI, unless exceptional circumstances so require. This is because the CFI is better informed of all the relevant circumstances of the case pending before it and because the CFI has a margin of discretion in managing the case.

The Court of Appeal rejected Vivo's request to stay the first instance proceedings or extend time limits pending the CoA's decision on a confidentiality order appeal. The court held that R. 21.2 RoP applies strictly: a stay requires an actual appeal against a preliminary objection decision, not an anticipated one. The court further established that while R. 295 RoP applies to both CFI and CoA, it is generally not for the CoA to decide on stays of CFI proceedings because the CFI is better informed and has case management discretion. The same principle applies to deadline extensions under R. 9.3 RoP.