Huawei Technologies v Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (CoA, UPC_CoA_53/2026, 13 May 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 13 May 2026, issued in German (UPC_CoA_53/2026), Judge Bart van den Broek, ruling for the Court of Appeal on Huawei’s request for discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP, allowed the appeal against the Munich Local Division’s order of 26 March 2026. That order had confirmed the access granted to the law firm Quinn Emanuel, under Rule 262.1(b) RoP, to certain pleadings in a closed infringement action between Huawei and MediaTek, and held Huawei’s request for panel review inadmissible. The order matters in practice because it puts before the Court of Appeal the question of which remedy lies against a judge-rapporteur’s decision on public access.

Question

Should an appeal be allowed where the issue is whether a judge-rapporteur’s decision on an access request under Rule 262.1(b) RoP is subject to panel review under Rule 333 RoP, and on what basis an appeal lies?

Decision

These are fundamental legal questions justifying discretionary review (paragraph 15). The order makes clear, however, that it does not decide whether an appeal under Rule 220.2 RoP is admissible, which is a matter for the appeal proceedings (paragraph 16). The parties may file observations on the admissibility of review under Rule 333 RoP and on the applicable limb of Rule 220 RoP (paragraph 17). Huawei must pay EUR 2,700, the difference between the discretionary review fee and the appeal fee, and the President of the Court of Appeal will assign the case to a panel.

Key points for practice

• How panel review under Rule 333 RoP interacts with an appeal against a judge-rapporteur’s decision on public access to documents is now before the Court of Appeal (paragraphs 15 and 16).

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 220.2, 220.3, 220.4, 262.1(b), 333 and 335

Case law cited

Motorola 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, Munich Local Division order under review.
• Huawei v Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, 29 June 2026, later Court of Appeal decision.

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.