Huawei Technologies v HMD Global (CFI, UPC_CFI_481/2025, 20 October 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 1 November 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 20 October 2026 (UPC_CFI_481/2025 and UPC_CFI_1358/2025), the Mannheim Local Division, hearing Huawei’s action for infringement of EP 3 667 981 against HMD Global and a counterclaim for revocation, held that the asserted claims were not entitled to the claimed priority and therefore lacked novelty over ETSI technical specifications published in 2018. The patent is revoked for France and Germany beyond claims 4 and 11-12, the infringement action is dismissed and the FRAND defence is not reached.

Facts and procedure

Huawei’s EP 3 667 981 concerns a method, a terminal device and a network device for determining feedback information (HARQ) in wireless communications. Huawei sued HMD Global for infringement in France and Germany. HMD raised a FRAND defence and counterclaimed for revocation, relying in particular on lack of novelty over ETSI TS 138 213, TS 138 331 and TS 138 214 (exhibits D1A to D1C). Huawei filed a conditional application to amend.

The Division issued case-management orders on 26 and 31 August 2026, one on technical issues (construction, priority, added matter), the other on FRAND. On 6 October 2026 HMD further applied for a production order under Rule 190 RoP and for the oral hearing to be reopened.

Question

Are claims 1 and 5 directly and unambiguously based on the priority application, so that ETSI specifications published before the filing date cannot be cited against them?

Decision

The Division holds that, absent any pointer to the contrary, every claim feature is presumed to have technical significance and to contribute to the claimed teaching. It then applies the Article 87 EPC test, aligned with the added-matter test (Court of Appeal, 2 June 2026, UPC_CoA_312/2025, Kodak v Fujifilm, para. 97): the claimed subject-matter must be directly and unambiguously derivable from the priority application, read without prior knowledge of the granted claim.

Since the subject-matter of claims 1 and 5 goes beyond the disclosure of the priority application, the patent is only entitled to its filing date of 10 August 2018, and the attacked claims, together with the dependent claims and independent claims 9 and 10, lack novelty over D1A to D1C. None of the auxiliary requests cures the defect. The patent is revoked for France and Germany to the extent that its subject-matter extends beyond that of claims 4 and 11-12 as granted.

The infringement action, based on claims 1 and 5, is dismissed. The Rule 190 production request and the request to reopen the hearing are dismissed, as the licence agreement concerned relates only to the FRAND defence and possibly exhaustion.

Huawei bears the costs. Although the parties agreed on recoverable costs, the Division declines to order specific performance in the merits decision and refers the matter to the procedure under Rules 150 et seq. RoP. The value in dispute is raised from EUR 1 million to EUR 3 million for each of the two actions, given the French and German markets and the licensing stakes.

Key points for practice

• Priority must be assessed without hindsight: it is not enough that a skilled person with the granted claim in mind can recognise its elements in the priority application.
• An action based on a standard-essential patent may fail before any FRAND assessment, making licence-related production requests moot.
• A costs agreement between the parties does not necessarily lead to a direct payment order in the merits decision.
• The value in dispute may be raised where the action also serves to advance portfolio licence negotiations.

Provisions applied

EPC

Articles 54, 87 and 138(1)(a)

UPC Agreement

Articles 65 and 69(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 118.5, 150 and 190

Case law cited

Kodak v Fujifilm (Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_312/2025, 2 June 2026), Fujifilm v Kodak (Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_473/2025, 13 July 2026), Amgen v Sanofi (Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_528/2024, 25 November 2025), Abbott v Sibio (Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_382/2024, 14 February 2025), NanoString v 10x Genomics (Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_335/2023, 26 February 2024), Sinocare v Abbott (Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_899/2025, 30 March 2026).

Related decisions

• Mannheim Local Division, 19 January 2026, UPC_CFI_481/2025, Huawei v HMD Global: order in the same proceedings on the confidentiality of licence negotiations.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 1 November 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.