Huawei Technologies v MediaTek (CFI, 4 September 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 4 September 2025 (UPC_CFI_247/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division ordered Huawei Technologies, claimant in the infringement action on European patent EP 3 567 731, to provide security for costs of EUR 100,000 in favour of MediaTek Germany within six weeks, instead of the EUR 239,000 sought. The ceiling on recoverable costs, including the counterclaim, serves as the benchmark and is shared between the defendants.

Question

Must a claimant established in China provide security for a defendant’s costs, and in what amount where the ceiling on recoverable costs benefits several defendants?

Decision

Security was ordered, but reduced. Adopting the Munich Local Division’s reasoning, the division noted that the claimant is seated outside the EU and the EEA, that recognition and enforcement of decisions there are not comparably guaranteed, that the division had never succeeded in serving a document in China and that no substantial assets in the EEA were shown, a mere willingness to pay being insufficient (paragraphs 12 and 13). The ceiling on recoverable representation costs, EUR 200,000 here including the counterclaim, is the benchmark (paragraph 15). It is shared between the defendants, MediaTek Inc. not yet having been served: MediaTek Germany receives half, EUR 100,000, with no later top-up (paragraphs 16 and 17). Security may be a deposit or a bank guarantee. Failing that, a default decision may be given (Rule 355).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: where there are several defendants, security is calculated on a share of the ceiling on recoverable costs, which leads to substantial reductions of claims pitched at the maximum.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69(4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 158.1, 158.5 and 355

Case law cited

Munich Local Division, 26 August 2025, Ballinno v Kinexon, Court of Appeal, 26 August 2024, NST v Audi, Court of Appeal, 17 September 2024, SodaStream v Aarke, Court of Appeal, 29 November 2024, Chint v JingAo, Court of Appeal, 9 July 2025

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.