Huawei v MediaTek (CFI, 26 February 2026)
| Date | 26 February 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Munich (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Application RoP262.1 (b) |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_1235/2025 |
| Registry reference | UPC-CFI-0001235/2025 |
| Parties | Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v. MediaTek, Inc. a. o. |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Case timeline
- 26 March 2026 : Huawei v MediaTek (CFI, UPC_CFI_1235/2025, 26 March 2026) UPC_CFI_1235/2025
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
In a procedural order of 26 February 2026 (UPC_CFI_1235/2025, EP 4 142 215), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division amended his own order of 27 January 2026, which had largely granted the law firm Quinn Emanuel access to the parties’ written submissions: access is deferred until the final conclusion of the panel review requested by Huawei. The order shows how the usefulness of a challenge to an access decision is preserved where access, once given, cannot be undone.
Question
May the judge-rapporteur, on application, suspend his own public access order while a panel review under Rule 333 is pending, and does this require payment of the Rule 223.1 fee?
Decision
Huawei’s suspension request was admissible and well founded. It rests directly on Rule 335, so whether Rule 223 applies by analogy could be left open (paragraphs 7 and 8). The judge-rapporteur retains power to amend his order despite the review request (paragraphs 11 and 12). The review request is not manifestly inadmissible and the fee was paid (paragraphs 14 and 15). Immediate access would effectively end the dispute and the knowledge gained could not be removed, even by a later confidentiality undertaking (paragraphs 16 and 17), the interest in suspension prevails (paragraphs 18 and 19). The Rule 223.1 fee is not required (paragraphs 20 and 21).
Key points for practice
- Rule 335 allows the judge-rapporteur to defer access to documents pending review (paragraphs 11 to 19).
- Practical point: a party resisting access granted to a third party should seek suspension at once, since the harm is irreversible once access is given (paragraphs 16 and 17).
Provisions applied
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 220.2, 223, 262.1(b), 333 and 335
Related decisions
Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.
Decisions in the same proceedings
Going further
Lexicon: Standard essential patent (SEP), FRAND offer and counter-offer, Injunctions and standard essential patents.
Dhenne Avocats blog: FRAND at the UPC: What the Court Has Decided, What Remains Open.
Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Munich’s FRAND Guidelines: A Compass Drawn Too Finely, Tesla v. InterDigital and the FRAND Undertaking Inside the Pool (Kluwer Patent Blog).
Further reading: M. Dhenne, “Calculation of FRAND Royalties: An Overview of Practices Around the World”, European Intellectual Property Review 2019, vol. 41, no. 12, p. 754. M. Dhenne, “Conversant v LG: What about FRAND in France?”, European Intellectual Property Review 2019, vol. 41, no. 9, p. 585.
Source and translations
- Official source
- Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
- Original language
- not recorded
- Translation available
- no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
- Date checked
- not recorded
Follow this case
Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.
Parties
- claimantHuawei Technologies Co. Ltd.42 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantMediaTek, Inc. a. o3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
- 26 February 2026 Huawei v MediaTek (CFI, 26 February 2026) Application RoP262.1 (b) · UPC_CFI_1235/2025
- 26 March 2026 Huawei v MediaTek (CFI, UPC_CFI_1235/2025, 26 March 2026) Application RoP262.1 (b) · UPC_CFI_1235/2025
La division locale de Munich maintient l'accès accordé à Quinn Emanuel aux écritures d'une procédure close, juge irrecevable le réexamen demandé par Huawei et refuse l'autorisation d'appel.
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Application RoP262.1 (b)
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- Le juge rapporteur modifie son ordonnance d'accès du public et diffère l'accès aux écritures jusqu'à l'issue définitive du réexamen par la formation, sans exiger la taxe de la règle 223.1.
- Appeal
- No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
- Instance
- First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.
Patents mentioned
EP 4 142 215mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Huawei v MediaTek (CFI, UPC_CFI_1235/2025, 26 March 2026) cited in this record
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 4 142 215Method and apparatus for obtaining UE security capabilities recorded proprietor: Huawei Technologies Co Ltd | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 7 other decision(s): Huawei Technologies v Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (CoA, 29 June · Huawei Technologies v Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (CoA, UPC_CoA_ · Huawei v MediaTek (CFI, UPC_CFI_1235/2025, 26 March 2026) · Huawei v MediaTek (CFI, UPC_CFI_1234/2025, 26 March 2026) · Huawei v MediaTek (CFI, 1 August 2025) · Huawei v MediaTek Germany (CFI, ORD_33626/2025, 1 August 2025) · Huawei Technologies v MediaTek (CFI, ORD_18799/2025, 13 May 2025) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet · European Patent Register existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically) mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
Receive an alert
Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.