Huawei v HMD Global Oy (CFI, 2026-01-19)

Holding

The non-public details of licence negotiations are confidential information within the meaning of Rule 262A, and protection may be extended in advance to all future submissions relating to those negotiations, so as to avoid repeated orders, each party remaining free to seek heightened protection for specified material. Restricting access to designated persons and confining use to the purposes of the present proceedings strikes the balance between the interest of the disclosing party and the other side's access. Protection extends to the hearing and to the decision, general discussion of FRAND questions remaining public, exclusion arising only when protected material is addressed. Access is granted to the authorised representatives and their teams, and to employees and third party consultants bound by a confidentiality undertaking aligned with the agreement existing between the parties. The regime rests on marking the confidential passages, the receiving party having one week to object.

Why it matters

This is the move from protection decided document by document to a standing regime settled in advance. In litigation where every submission touches on licence negotiations, the saving in time is considerable. The order continues the line opened by Daedalus Prime v Xiaomi and confirmed by the Court of Appeal on 26 January 2026.

Practical point

Seek, at the outset of the proceedings, a regime covering future submissions, and provide expressly for the objection period. Failing that, every submission calls for its own application.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.