Opens in a new tab

Huawei v TP-Link Systems (CoA, 17 February 2026)

Date17 February 2026
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionAppeal RoP220.2
Case number(s)UPC_CoA_926/2025;UPC_CoA_927/2025
Registry referenceUPC-COA-0000926/2025 · UPC-COA-0000927/2025
PartiesHuawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (and Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited in the CFI main action) v. TP-Link Sys…

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 19 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

The Court of Appeal dismisses Huawei’s appeals against the orders of the Munich Local Division of 28 November 2025 granting TP-Link access to written pleadings in the closed actions between Huawei and Netgear concerning the patent asserted against TP-Link (paras. 1, 2 and 20 to 23). The public interest in consulting written pleadings is weighed against the interests referred to in Article 45 UPCA and, once the case has ended, that balance generally favours access (paras. 15 and 16). Where a request under Rule 262.2 RoP was filed with redacted versions, access is limited to those versions. Otherwise, the public has access to the pleadings as filed, subject to personal data (paras. 17 and 18). A party heard on the access request may still file a compliant, reasoned request accompanied by redacted copies, the Court leaving open whether such a request must accompany the initial filing (para. 19). Huawei did not do so (para. 23). The suspensive effect order of 17 December 2025 is set aside (para. 24) and no reimbursement of costs is granted (paras. 25 and 26).

Why it matters

After closure, only a request complying with Rule 262.2 protects the content of written pleadings against a third party, even a competitor sued on the same patent. Without such a request, a general invocation of confidentiality is not enough.

Practical point

File with every sensitive pleading a reasoned request under Rule 262.2, together with its redacted version. If an access request is made nonetheless, file a compliant request while being heard by the judge-rapporteur.

Summary prepared by Dhenne Avocats. Only the official text of the decision is authoritative.

Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

Lexicon: UPC Court of Appeal, Standard essential patent (SEP), FRAND offer and counter-offer, Injunctions and standard essential patents.

Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show, 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
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

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.

Proceedings

  • UPC_CoA_926/2025 official number
  • UPC_CoA_927/2025 official number

Follow these proceedings

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 17 December 2025 Huawei v TP-Link Systems (CoA, 17 December 2025) Appeal RoP220.2 · UPC_CoA_926/2025, UPC_CoA_927/2025

    La cour d'appel ordonne, sans entendre TP-Link, que les appels de Huawei aient un effet suspensif pour la durée de l'instance et que TP-Link n'ait pas accès aux écritures visées par l'ordonnance de la division locale de Munich du 28 novembre 2025 (dispositif, I). Au regard de l'article 74(1) AJUB, l'effet suspensif se …

  2. 17 February 2026 Huawei v TP-Link Systems (CoA, 17 February 2026) Appeal RoP220.2 · UPC_CoA_926/2025, UPC_CoA_927/2025

What the record states

Nature of the act
Appeal RoP220.2
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La cour d'appel rejette les appels de Huawei contre les ordonnances de la division locale de Munich du 28 novembre 2025, qui ouvraient à TP-Link l'accès à des écritures des actions closes entre Huawei et Netgear, portant sur le brevet opposé à TP-Link (§ 1, 2 et 20 à 23). L'intérêt du public à consulter les écritures se met en balance avec les intérêts visés à l'article 45 AJUB, une fois l'affaire close, cette balance penche en général en faveur de l'accès (§ 15 et 16). Lorsqu'une demande fondée sur la règle 262.2 RoP a été déposée avec des versions caviardées, l'accès se limite à ces versions. À défaut, le public accède aux écritures telles que déposées, sous réserve des données personnelles (§ 17 et 18). Une partie entendue sur la demande d'accès peut encore présenter une demande conforme, motivée et accompagnée des copies caviardées, la cour laissant ouverte la question de savoir si cette demande doit accompagner le dépôt initial (§ 19). Huawei ne l'a pas fait (§ 23). L'ordonnance d'effet suspensif du 17 décembre 2025 est rapportée (§ 24) et aucun remboursement des frais n'est accordé (§ 25 et 26).
Appeal
Decision of the Court of Appeal.
Instance
Court of Appeal decision.

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.