Huawei Technologies v NETGEAR Deutschland (CFI, 8 May 2024)

Date	8 May 2024
Court	CFI
Division	Munich (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_22295/2024 · ORD_22952/2024
Parties	Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

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

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 8 May 2024 (UPC_CFI_9/2023, ACT_459771/2023, App_22295/2024), the Munich Local Division, in Huawei’s infringement action against three Netgear group companies on EP 3 611 989, said to be essential to the Wi-Fi 6 standard, confirmed the preliminary production and confidentiality orders of 25 April 2024 concerning a Wi-Fi portfolio licence agreement concluded by Huawei with Amazon.com Inc. on 5 March 2024. It also allowed that licence and the confidential information in it to be used in the severed proceedings on EP 3 678 321.

Question

Can a production order be directed at the very party that wishes to file a confidential document, and can the document so protected be used in severed parallel proceedings?

Decision

Referring to an order of the Mannheim Local Division of 30 April 2024, the Division held that an order directed at the requesting party itself is possible, at least under Rule 103 RoP. As the parties agreed on that point, on the confidentiality sought and on use of the licence in the proceedings on EP 3 678 321, no further reasoning was given. Huawei had stated that the confidentiality measures should apply there as well.

Key points for practice

Practical point: a SEP holder wishing to file a confidential comparable licence can ask for a production order directed at its own document, with a confidentiality regime that, by agreement of the parties, extends to parallel proceedings.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Arts 45 and 58
Rules of Procedure: Rules 9, 103, 115, 172.2, 262.1, 262.2 and 262A
Case law cited: Mannheim Local Division, 30 April 2024, UPC_CFI_218/2023, App_14035/2024

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.

Going further

Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantHuawei Technologies Co. Ltd.42 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Les ordonnances provisoires de production et de confidentialité visant la licence Huawei et Amazon sont confirmées, et l'utilisation de cette licence est autorisée dans la procédure disjointe relative au brevet EP 3 678 321.
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 3 678 321 mentioned in: summary of the decision, Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
EP 3 611 989 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

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.

Patents and standards

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 3 678 321` Resource scheduling method, apparatus, and device recorded proprietor: Huawei Technologies Co Ltd	Patent at issue according to the summary or official headnote Also mentioned in 16 other decision(s): Netgear Deutschland v Huawei (CFI, 18 January 2024) · Huawei v Netgear (CFI, ORD_593105/2023, 11 December 2023) · Huawei v Netgear (CFI, ORD_587438/2023, 11 December 2023) · Huawei Technologies v TP-Link Systems (CFI, 18 November 2025) · Huawei Technologies v Netgear (CFI, 13 January 2025) · Netgear Deutschland v Huawei Technologies (CFI, 10 January 2025) · Huawei Technologies v Netgear Deutschland (CFI, ORD_1780/2025, 10 Janu · Huawei v Netgear International (CFI, 2 January 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: summary of the decision, Dhenne Avocats analysis
`EP 3 611 989` Method and apparatus for transmitting wireless local area network information recorded proprietor: Huawei Technologies Co Ltd	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 19 other decision(s): Huawei v Netgear (CFI, ORD_598540/2023, 18 December 2024) · Huawei Technologies v Sercomm (CFI, 8 July 2026) · Huawei Technologies v Netgear (CFI, 13 January 2025) · Huawei Technologies v Netgear Deutschland (CFI, ORD_1830/2025, 10 Janu · Netgear Deutschland v Huawei Technologies (CFI, 10 January 2025) · Netgear v Huawei Technologies (CFI, 27 December 2024) · Huawei v Netgear (CFI, 11 December 2024) · Huawei v Netgear International (CFI, 9 September 2024)	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

The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

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.