Huawei v MediaTek (CFI, UPC_CFI_1235/2025, 26 March 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By decision of 26 March 2026, issued in German (UPC_CFI_1235/2025), the panel of the Munich Local Division upheld the judge-rapporteur’s decision of 27 January 2026 granting the law firm Quinn Emanuel access, subject to redactions, to the statement of claim, statement of defence and counterclaim for revocation in an infringement action on EP 4 142 215 between Huawei and MediaTek (UPC_CFI_254/2025), which had ended by withdrawal. It held Huawei’s request for review inadmissible and refused leave to appeal. In practice, the decision confirms that a law firm may obtain access to pleadings in closed proceedings on the basis of a training and advisory interest assessed in the abstract.

Question

Can the judge-rapporteur’s decision on an access request under Rule 262.1(b) RoP be reviewed by the panel, and does a law firm’s general interest justify access without a confidentiality undertaking?

Decision

Review under Rule 333.1 RoP is not available against such a decision, since the judge-rapporteur exercises original rather than delegated competence (paragraphs 22 to 29). In any event, a law firm’s training and advisory interest is assessed in the abstract, without its having to specify the information sought. It is enough that the pleadings shed light on how the court handles cases (paragraphs 32 to 36). An objection of fishing must be concretely substantiated, and parallel applications by the same applicant do not show abuse (paragraphs 37 to 39). In concluded proceedings, access generally prevails (paragraph 41). As access permits neither onward disclosure nor publication, no confidentiality undertaking is owed (paragraphs 42 to 45). Leave to appeal was refused, the principles being settled (paragraphs 46 to 48).

Key points for practice

• A law firm may obtain access to pleadings in closed proceedings without showing a specific need (paragraphs 32 to 36 and 41).
• A party opposing access cannot ask the panel to review the judge-rapporteur’s decision (paragraphs 22 to 29).

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 220.1, 220.2, 223, 262.1(b), 333 and 335

Case law cited

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

Related decisions

• Huawei v MediaTek, 26 February 2026, judge-rapporteur’s order deferring access until the review is concluded.

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.