Huawei v MediaTek (CFI, UPC_CFI_1234/2025, 26 March 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 26 March 2026 (UPC_CFI_1234/2025), the Munich Local Division upholds its judge-rapporteur’s decision of 27 January 2026 granting the law firm Quinn Emanuel partial, redacted access to the pleadings in Huawei v MediaTek (UPC_CFI_248/2025 and UPC_CFI_668/2025, EP 3 905 840). Huawei’s application for review is held inadmissible and, in any event, unfounded. A separate order of the same day rules in the same terms in the parallel proceedings concerning EP 4 142 215.

Question

Can the judge-rapporteur’s decision on third-party access to the file (Rule 262.1(b) RoP) be reviewed by the panel under Rule 333.1 RoP, and does a law firm have a legitimate interest in such access?

Decision

The judge-rapporteur alone is competent for third-party access, so review by the panel is not available. The remedy derives from Rule 220.1(b) RoP, following the Court of Appeal in Ocado (paragraphs 23 to 28). On the merits, a law firm’s training and advisory interest is legitimate, law firms being part of the public (paragraphs 32 and 33), it is assessed in the abstract, without the applicant having to specify the information sought (paragraphs 34 to 36), and the fishing objection is unsubstantiated (paragraphs 37 to 39). No confidentiality undertaking is required, since access allows neither onward disclosure nor publication (paragraphs 42 to 45). Leave to appeal is refused, the principles being settled (paragraphs 46 to 48).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a party wishing to challenge third-party access granted by the judge-rapporteur should appeal under Rule 220.1(b) RoP rather than apply for review.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 220.1(b), 220.2, 262.1(b), 333.1 and 335

Case law cited

Ocado v Autostore, Court of Appeal, 10 April 2024, Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer v EOFlow, Court of Appeal, 22 December 2025, Abbott v Powell Gilbert, Court of Appeal, 9 January 2025

Related decisions

• Huawei v MediaTek, 26 March 2026, parallel order in the proceedings concerning EP 4 142 215.

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.