Huawei Technologies v Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (CoA, 29 June 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 29 June 2026 (UPC_CoA_52/2026), panel 3 of the Court of Appeal dismissed Huawei’s appeal against the decision of the Munich Local Division of 26 March 2026, which had upheld access for the law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan to the pleadings in infringement action UPC_CFI_254/2025 (EP 4 142 215), subject to redactions. The order matters in two ways. It settles the route of appeal against a judge-rapporteur’s decision under Rule 262.1(b) RoP: review by the panel (Rule 333 RoP), then an appeal under Rule 220.2 RoP or a request for discretionary review (Rule 220.3 RoP). It also confirms that a law firm is a member of the public and that an interest in training and advising suffices, especially once the proceedings have ended.

Facts and procedure

On 20 October 2025, Quinn Emanuel requested access to the pleadings in an infringement action by Huawei against MediaTek, which had ended without a decision on the merits. The judge-rapporteur granted access on 27 January 2026, subject to redactions. Huawei asked for a panel review (Rule 333.1 RoP), on 26 March 2026 the panel held that request inadmissible, and in the alternative unfounded, on the basis that a direct appeal under Rule 220.1(b) RoP was required, and did not grant leave to appeal. On 13 April 2026 Huawei filed a request for discretionary review (Rule 220.3 RoP), which was granted, and the Court decided without a hearing with the parties’ consent (Art. 52(3) UPCA). Huawei sought refusal of access or, in the alternative, a confidentiality undertaking. MediaTek Deutschland asked only that access not go beyond what the judge-rapporteur had allowed.

The applicable law

The register is public, subject to exceptions (Arts. 10(1) and 45 UPCA). Rule 262.1(b) RoP allows access to pleadings and evidence on a reasoned request, after the judge-rapporteur has heard the parties. The public interest is weighed against the protection of confidential information, personal data and the integrity of proceedings (paragraphs 35 to 37). Rule 333.1 RoP makes the judge-rapporteur’s decisions subject to prior review by the panel.

Question

What is the route of appeal against a judge-rapporteur’s decision on third-party access to pleadings, and should a law firm be granted access to the file of proceedings that have ended?

Decision

On admissibility, the Court accepted that the Rules of Procedure do not clearly identify the applicable remedy, the access procedure being hybrid: administrative in form, with adversarial features (paragraphs 21 and 24). Rules 220.1(a) and (b) RoP do not apply: there is no final decision, and their time limits and fees are ill suited to a swift access procedure (paragraphs 23 to 25). Rule 220.2 RoP is a better fit, consistent with the remedies against confidentiality orders (paragraph 26). A decision under Rule 262.1(b) RoP is a case management decision in the broad sense of Rule 333.1 RoP and must first go to the panel (paragraphs 29 to 32). Huawei had therefore taken the correct route (paragraph 33).

On the merits, once proceedings have ended, the balance generally favours access (paragraph 38). A law firm may be a member of the public, and its interest in training and in advising clients better is legitimate (paragraph 40), it need not say in advance which part of the documents will be useful (paragraph 42). The fishing argument was not substantiated (paragraph 44). The agreed redactions, together with those sought by MediaTek and accepted by Quinn Emanuel, were sufficient, as Huawei had identified no further confidential material (paragraph 45). A confidentiality undertaking was unnecessary, since the case had ended and the applicant had confirmed it would not publish the documents (paragraph 46). The appeal was dismissed.

Key points for practice

• A judge-rapporteur’s decision on an access request goes first to panel review (Rule 333 RoP), then to appeal under Rules 220.2 and 220.3 RoP, not to a direct appeal under Rule 220.1 RoP.
• A law firm is a member of the public within Rule 262.1(b) RoP, an interest in training and advising suffices.
• Once proceedings have ended, access is in principle granted. The party resisting it must identify the confidential material specifically.
• Practical point: a party wishing to protect its pleadings should designate the passages to be redacted during the access procedure itself, as a general objection will not succeed.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 10(1), 45 and 52(3)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 220.1, 220.2, 220.3, 262.1(b), 262.2, 333.1 and 335

Case law cited

Netgear v Huawei, Court of Appeal, 21 March 2024, Microsoft v Suinno, Court of Appeal, 21 August 2024, Total Semiconductor v Texas Instruments, Court of Appeal, 14 January 2025, Ocado v Autostore, Court of Appeal, 8 February 2024, Ocado v Autostore, Court of Appeal, 10 April 2024, Abbott v Powell Gilbert, Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_481/2024, Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer v EOFlow, Court of Appeal, 22 December 2025, EOFlow v Insulet, Court of Appeal, 4 February 2026, Gowling v Sumi Agro and Syngenta, Court of Appeal, 24 February 2026, Gowling v Boehringer Ingelheim and Zentiva, Court of Appeal, 24 February 2026

Related decisions

• Huawei v Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, 13 May 2026, order granting the request for discretionary review.

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.