Huawei Technologies v Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (CoA, UPC_CoA_52/2026, 13 May 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

On an application for discretionary review by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., the Court of Appeal grants leave to appeal against the decision of the Munich Local Division of 26 March 2026, which had upheld the access granted to Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP to the written pleadings of an infringement action that ended without a decision on the merits (UPC_CFI_254/2025, EP 4 142 215). Whether a judge-rapporteur’s decision on an access request under Rule 262.1(b) can be reviewed by the panel (Rule 333) and then appealed is held to be a fundamental question (paragraph 15).

Question

Should the Local Division’s refusal of leave to appeal against its decision, which had held Huawei’s review application inadmissible and unfounded, be overcome by discretionary review under Rule 220.3?

Decision

The standing judge of the Court of Appeal grants leave to appeal and refers the case to the President for allocation to a panel, citing two earlier decisions of the Court (paragraph 15). The order makes clear that this does not mean the appeal is admissible, which is for the appeal proceedings (paragraph 16), and invites the parties to comment by 29 May 2026 on the admissibility of the Rule 333 review and on which provision of Rule 220 governs the appeal (paragraph 17). Huawei must pay a further EUR 2,700 by 22 May 2026, being the difference between the discretionary review fee (EUR 1,300) and the appeal fee (EUR 4,000). An order of the same day (UPC_CoA_53/2026) grants leave in a parallel access proceeding.

Key points for practice

• How panel review of a judge-rapporteur’s decision relates to an appeal remains open: granting leave does not establish that the appeal is admissible (paragraph 16).
• A party objecting to third-party access to its pleadings can use Rule 220.3 where leave to appeal is refused.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 220.2, 220.3, 262.1(b) and 333

Case law cited

Motorola Mobility v Ericsson, Court of Appeal, 6 September 2024, Centripetal v Keysight, Court of Appeal, 1 September 2025

Related decisions

• Huawei v MediaTek, 26 March 2026, the contested decision of the Munich Local Division.
• Huawei v Quinn Emanuel, 13 May 2026, parallel order in UPC_CoA_53/2026.
• Huawei v Quinn Emanuel, 29 June 2026, later decision of the Court of Appeal in the same proceedings.

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.