Opens in a new tab

Huawei v MediaTek (CFI, 26 February 2026)

Date26 February 2026
CourtCFI
DivisionMunich (DE) Local Division
Type of actionApplication RoP262.1 (b)
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_1235/2025
Registry referenceUPC-CFI-0001235/2025
PartiesHuawei Technologies Co. Ltd v. MediaTek, Inc. a. o.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

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

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a procedural order of 26 February 2026 (UPC_CFI_1235/2025, EP 4 142 215), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division amended his own order of 27 January 2026, which had largely granted the law firm Quinn Emanuel access to the parties’ written submissions: access is deferred until the final conclusion of the panel review requested by Huawei. The order shows how the usefulness of a challenge to an access decision is preserved where access, once given, cannot be undone.

Question

May the judge-rapporteur, on application, suspend his own public access order while a panel review under Rule 333 is pending, and does this require payment of the Rule 223.1 fee?

Decision

Huawei’s suspension request was admissible and well founded. It rests directly on Rule 335, so whether Rule 223 applies by analogy could be left open (paragraphs 7 and 8). The judge-rapporteur retains power to amend his order despite the review request (paragraphs 11 and 12). The review request is not manifestly inadmissible and the fee was paid (paragraphs 14 and 15). Immediate access would effectively end the dispute and the knowledge gained could not be removed, even by a later confidentiality undertaking (paragraphs 16 and 17), the interest in suspension prevails (paragraphs 18 and 19). The Rule 223.1 fee is not required (paragraphs 20 and 21).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rules 220.2, 223, 262.1(b), 333 and 335

Related decisions

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.


Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

Lexicon: Standard essential patent (SEP), FRAND offer and counter-offer, Injunctions and standard essential patents.

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
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_CFI_1235/2025 official number

Follow this case

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 26 February 2026 Huawei v MediaTek (CFI, 26 February 2026) Application RoP262.1 (b) · UPC_CFI_1235/2025
  2. 26 March 2026 Huawei v MediaTek (CFI, UPC_CFI_1235/2025, 26 March 2026) Application RoP262.1 (b) · UPC_CFI_1235/2025

    La division locale de Munich maintient l'accès accordé à Quinn Emanuel aux écritures d'une procédure close, juge irrecevable le réexamen demandé par Huawei et refuse l'autorisation d'appel.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Application RoP262.1 (b)
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
Le juge rapporteur modifie son ordonnance d'accès du public et diffère l'accès aux écritures jusqu'à l'issue définitive du réexamen par la formation, sans exiger la taxe de la règle 223.1.
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.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 4 142 215
Method and apparatus for obtaining UE security capabilities
recorded proprietor: Huawei Technologies Co Ltd
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 7 other decision(s): Huawei Technologies v Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (CoA, 29 June · Huawei Technologies v Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (CoA, UPC_CoA_ · Huawei v MediaTek (CFI, UPC_CFI_1235/2025, 26 March 2026) · Huawei v MediaTek (CFI, UPC_CFI_1234/2025, 26 March 2026) · Huawei v MediaTek (CFI, 1 August 2025) · Huawei v MediaTek Germany (CFI, ORD_33626/2025, 1 August 2025) · Huawei Technologies v MediaTek (CFI, ORD_18799/2025, 13 May 2025)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · European Patent Register
existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically)
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.