Huawei v HMD Global (CFI, 19 January 2026)
| Date | 19 January 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Application RoP262A |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_481/2025 |
| Registry reference | UPC_CFI_481/2025 |
| Parties | Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v. HMD Global Oy |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Case timeline
- 20 October 2026 : Huawei Technologies v HMD Global (CFI, UPC_CFI_481/2025, 20 October 2026) UPC_CFI_481/2025
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
Dhenne Avocats · 19 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
Non-public details of licence negotiations constitute confidential information within the meaning of Rule 262A, and protection may be extended in advance to all future pleadings relating to those negotiations, to avoid repeated orders, each party retaining the option to seek enhanced protection for specific items. Restricting access to designated persons and limiting use to the needs of the present proceedings strike the balance between the interest of the disclosing party and the opposing party’s access. Protection extends to the hearing and the decision, general discussion of FRAND issues remaining public, with exclusion occurring 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 existing agreement between the parties. The regime relies on the marking of confidential passages, the receiving party having one week to object.
Why it matters
This marks the shift from protection decided document by document to a standing regime set in advance. In litigation where every pleading touches on licence negotiations, the time saved is considerable. The decision extends the line opened by Daedalus Prime v Xiaomi and confirmed by the Court of Appeal on 26 January 2026.
Practical point
Seek, from the outset of the proceedings, a regime covering future pleadings and provide expressly for the objection period. Otherwise, each pleading will require its own application.
Summary prepared by Dhenne Avocats. Only the official text of the decision is authoritative.
Going further
Lexicon: Standard essential patent (SEP), FRAND offer and counter-offer, Injunctions and standard essential patents, Confidentiality club.
Dhenne Avocats blog: FRAND at the UPC: What the Court Has Decided, What Remains Open.
Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Munich’s FRAND Guidelines: A Compass Drawn Too Finely, Tesla v. InterDigital and the FRAND Undertaking Inside the Pool (Kluwer Patent Blog).
Further reading: M. Dhenne, “Calculation of FRAND Royalties: An Overview of Practices Around the World”, European Intellectual Property Review 2019, vol. 41, no. 12, p. 754. M. Dhenne, “Conversant v LG: What about FRAND in France?”, European Intellectual Property Review 2019, vol. 41, no. 9, p. 585.
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
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.
Parties
- defendantHMD Global Oy15 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantHuawei Technologies Co. Ltd.42 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
- 19 January 2026 Huawei v HMD Global (CFI, 19 January 2026) Application RoP262A · UPC_CFI_481/2025
- 20 October 2026 Huawei Technologies v HMD Global (CFI, UPC_CFI_481/2025, 20 October 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_481/2025
La division locale de Mannheim annule le brevet EP 3 667 981 pour la France et l’Allemagne au-delà des revendications 4 et 11-12 telles que délivrées, faute de priorité valable, rejette la demande de modification et l’action en contrefaçon, et met les frais à la charge de Huawei.
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Application RoP262A
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- Les détails non publics des négociations de licence constituent une information confidentielle au sens de la règle 262A, et la protection peut être étendue par avance à l'ensemble des écritures futures relatives à ces négociations, afin d'éviter la répétition des ordonnances, chaque partie conservant la faculté de solliciter une protection renforcée pour des éléments déterminés. La restriction de l'accès à des personnes désignées et la limitation de l'usage aux besoins de la présente instance assurent l'équilibre entre l'intérêt de la partie qui communique et l'accès de la partie adverse. La protection s'étend à l'audience et à la décision, la discussion générale des questions FRAND demeurant publique, l'exclusion n'intervenant qu'au moment où des éléments protégés sont abordés. L'accès est ouvert aux représentants autorisés et à leurs équipes, ainsi qu'aux salariés et consultants tiers soumis à un engagement de confidentialité aligné sur l'accord existant entre les parties. Le régime repose sur le marquage des passages confidentiels, la partie destinataire disposant d'une semaine pour objecter.
- Appeal
- No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
- Instance
- First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Huawei Technologies v HMD Global (CFI, UPC_CFI_481/2025, 20 October 2026) cites this decision
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.