Huawei v MediaTek Germany (CFI, ORD_33626/2025, 1 August 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By a procedural order of 1 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_254/2025, ACT_14180/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division granted the confidentiality application of MediaTek Germany, defendant in Huawei Technologies’ infringement action (EP 4 142 215). The marked passages of the statement of defence (non-technical part) of 23 July 2025 and the annexes marked « confidential » or « strictly confidential » are protected, with access on the claimant’s side limited to its representatives, seventeen named individuals and, for strictly confidential information, two of them. The order implements a confidentiality agreement concluded between the parties on 11 July 2025, which Huawei confirmed.

Question

On what basis can confidentiality be ordered towards the public and the other party, and how should access be limited?

Decision

Protection rests on the analogous application of Rules 262.2 and 262A.1 RoP, the judge leaving open whether Rule 262A applies directly to confidentiality towards the public. There is an unintended gap, since the UPCA and the Rules aim to protect trade secrets (paragraphs 6 to 10). The information undisputedly comprises trade secrets whose protection outweighs public access (paragraph 11). The confidentiality obligation binds the parties, representatives, witnesses and experts, party experts not being admitted for now (paragraphs 12 to 14). Access is limited to what is necessary, with at least one natural person per party (Rule 262A.6 RoP) (paragraphs 15 to 18). Any culpable breach may lead to a penalty of up to EUR 250,000. The requests on hearings and on access to the file (App_33547/2025) remain undecided (paragraphs 20 and 21).

Key points for practice

• An uncontested prior confidentiality agreement between the parties in practice sets the circle of authorised persons. Private experts must be designated later.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 58

Rules of Procedure

Rules 262.2, 262A.1 and 262A.6

Case law cited

Daedalus Prime v Xiaomi, Court of Appeal, 12 February 2025, Network System Technologies v Qualcomm, Court of Appeal, 3 July 2025, Nokia v Amazon, Munich Local Division, 6 February 2025 (UPC_CFI_399/2023), Nokia v Acer, Munich Local Division, 19 May 2025 (UPC_CFI_293/2025)

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.