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

Date	29 June 2026
Court	CoA
Division	Luxembourg (LU)
Type of action	Application RoP262.1 (b)
Case number(s)	UPC_CoA_53/2026
Registry reference	UPC-COA-53/2026
Parties	Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH) v. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

13 May 2026 : Huawei Technologies v Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (CoA, UPC_CoA_53/2026, 13 May 2026) UPC-COA-0000053/2026

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

Decisions of the judge-rapporteur on public access to written pleadings and evidence under Rule 262.1(b) RoP are subject to review by the panel under Rule 333, whose notion of a case management decision or order calls for a broad interpretation (para. 31), and then to appeal under Rule 220.2 (paras. 26 and 30). On the merits, access is favoured once the proceedings have ended (paras. 41 and 42), a law firm may rely on a legitimate professional interest (para. 40), and an allegation of misuse must be supported by concrete evidence (para. 44). The proposed redactions were sufficient to protect confidentiality (para. 45) and the end of the proceedings deprived the requested confidentiality undertaking of its purpose (para. 46).

Why it matters

The procedural route for challenging a decision on access to the file is now clear: review by the panel, then appeal. The decision contains no reasoning on standard essential patents or FRAND terms, despite the identity of the parties.

Practical point

A request for access filed after the proceedings have ended has a much better chance of success. Careful proposed redactions carry more weight than a general invocation of a risk of misuse.

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

Decisions in the same proceedings

Huawei (MediaTek v Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (CoA, UPC_CoA_53/2026, 2026-05-13), 13 May 2026

Going further

Lexicon: UPC Court of Appeal.

Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.

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_53/2026 official number

Follow this case

Parties

claimantHuawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH)4 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantQuinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP4 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

13 May 2026 Huawei Technologies v Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (CoA, UPC_CoA_53/2026, 13 May 2026) Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) · UPC_CoA_53/2026
La cour d'appel admet l'appel de Huawei contre l'ordonnance de la division locale de Munich confirmant l'accès de Quinn Emanuel à des écritures, la voie de recours contre une décision du juge rapporteur soulevant une question de principe.
29 June 2026 Huawei v Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (CoA, 29 June 2026) Application RoP262.1 (b) · UPC_CoA_53/2026

What the record states

Nature of the act: Application RoP262.1 (b)
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Les décisions du juge rapporteur relatives à l'accès du public aux écritures et aux preuves, prises au titre de la règle 262.1 b), relèvent de la révision par la formation au titre de la règle 333, dont la notion de décision ou d'ordonnance de procédure appelle une interprétation large (§ 31), puis de l'appel au titre de la règle 220.2 (§ 26 et § 30). Au fond, l'accès est favorisé une fois l'instance éteinte (§ 41 et § 42), un cabinet d'avocats peut se prévaloir d'un intérêt professionnel légitime (§ 40), et l'allégation d'usage abusif doit être étayée par des éléments concrets (§ 44). Les caviardages proposés suffisaient à protéger la confidentialité (§ 45) et l'extinction de l'instance privait d'objet l'engagement de confidentialité sollicité (§ 46).
Appeal: Decision of the Court of Appeal.
Instance: Court of Appeal decision.

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Huawei Technologies v Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (CoA, UPC_CoA_53/2026, 13 May 2026) cited in this record
Ter Meer Steinmeister & Partner Patentanwälte mbB v 2seventy bio (CFI, 23 July 2026) cites this decision

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.