Huawei v Netgear (CFI, ORD_587438/2023, 11 December 2023)
| Date | 11 December 2023 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Munich (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Infringement Action |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_9/2023 |
| Registry reference | ORD_587438/2023 · UPC_CFI_9/2023 |
| Parties | Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v. Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Case timeline
- 3 October 2023 : Huawei Technologies v Netgear (CFI, 3 October 2023) ORD575878/2023 · UPC_CFI_9/2023
- 11 December 2023 : Netgear Deutschland v Huawei (CFI, 11 December 2023) ORD_586381/2023 · UPC_CFI_9/2023
- 11 December 2023 : Huawei v Netgear (CFI, ORD_593105/2023, 11 December 2023) ORD_593105/2023 · UPC_CFI_9/2023
- 18 January 2024 : Netgear Deutschland v Huawei (CFI, 18 January 2024) App_595631/2023 · UPC_CFI_9/2023
- 9 February 2024 : Huawei v Netgear (CFI, 9 February 2024) ACT_459771/2023 · ORD_2866/2024 · UPC_CFI_9/2023
- 19 February 2024 : Huawei v Netgear Deutschland (CFI, 19 February 2024) App_6074/2024 · ORD_6286/2024 · UPC_CFI_9/2023
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
By order of 11 December 2023 (UPC_CFI_9/2023, ACT_459771/2023, App_587438/2023), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division (M. Zigann), in Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd’s infringement action on EP 3 611 989 against Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc. and Netgear International Limited, allowed the action to be extended to a second patent, EP 3 678 321, under Rule 263.1 RoP. A proprietor is not required to sue on a patent while limitation proceedings before the EPO are pending.
Question
May the claimant extend its infringement action to another patent a few weeks after limitation proceedings before the EPO have ended, without being regarded as lacking diligence or unreasonably hindering the defence?
Decision
The application, filed on 23 November 2023 after limitation proceedings that ended on 20 October 2023, was admissible and well founded. The interval was explained by the legal preparation required. A diligent claimant did not have to sue during the limitation, since it would then have had to amend its claims once it ended, with no gain in procedural economy. Some hindrance to the defendants is accepted by Rule 263 RoP, if both patents are heard together, the division must give them essentially the same opportunities for defence as in a new action, for example by granting or extending time limits, which separation would make simpler. The value in dispute was raised to EUR 2 million, of which EUR 1 million relates to the extension. Collection of the additional court fees was deferred and the parties were given 14 days to comment on a possible separation.
Key points for practice
- Practical point: the end of EPO limitation proceedings may justify a late extension of the action under Rule 263 RoP, provided the claimant acts within a short and explicable period, the defence keeps safeguards equivalent to those of a new action.
Provisions applied
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 263.1, 263.3 and 333
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: Patent infringement action.
Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).
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
- claimantHuawei Technologies Co. Ltd.42 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantNetgear Inc.22 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantNetgear Deutschland GmbH20 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantNetgear International Limited19 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
- 3 October 2023 Huawei Technologies v Netgear (CFI, 3 October 2023) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_9/2023
Le juge rapporteur accordera la protection de la règle 262A dès son dépôt dans le circuit approprié, renvoie le huis clos à la formation d'audience, diffère la confidentialité du jugement et rejette l'extension des obligations à des tiers.
- 11 December 2023 Netgear Deutschland v Huawei (CFI, 11 December 2023) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_9/2023
L'avis du juge rapporteur renvoyant l'exception préliminaire au fond n'est ni une décision ni une ordonnance au sens de la règle 333.1, la demande de réexamen par la formation est irrecevable et c'est le juge rapporteur qui la rejette.
- 11 December 2023 Huawei v Netgear (CFI, ORD_593105/2023, 11 December 2023) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_9/2023
La division locale de Munich invite les défenderesses à se prononcer sous quatorze jours sur la disjonction de l'extension de l'action au brevet EP 3 678 321, la demanderesse pouvant répondre sous sept jours.
- 11 December 2023 Huawei v Netgear (CFI, ORD_587438/2023, 11 December 2023) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_9/2023
- 18 January 2024 Netgear Deutschland v Huawei (CFI, 18 January 2024) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_9/2023
La formation confirme l'admission de l'extension de l'action de Huawei au brevet EP 3 678 321, fixe le terme du délai de défense sur l'extension au 11 mars 2024 et autorise l'appel.
- 9 February 2024 Huawei v Netgear (CFI, 9 February 2024) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_9/2023
Faute d'accord de la demanderesse, la langue de la procédure reste l'allemand. Les audiences se tiendront toutefois en anglais, les représentants y ayant consenti, et des traductions de travail anglaises des écritures sont demandées.
- 19 February 2024 Huawei v Netgear Deutschland (CFI, 19 February 2024) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_9/2023
La division locale de Munich juge efficace le dépôt combiné de Huawei du 29 janvier 2024, fixe le calendrier et l'audience de juin 2024 et fixe la valeur de la procédure à 2 millions d'euros.
- 22 February 2024 Netgear v Huawei Technologies (CoA, ORD_9613/2024, 22 February 2024) Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision
La cour d'appel rejette la demande de Netgear d'abréger le délai de réponse de Huawei, déposée le dernier jour de son propre délai, les intérêts de l'intimé et les principes d'une procédure régulière l'emportant.
- 22 February 2024 Netgear v Huawei Technologies (CoA, ORD_9612/2024, 22 February 2024) Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision
La cour d'appel rejette la demande de Netgear d'abréger le délai de réponse de Huawei, déposée le dernier jour de son propre délai, les intérêts de l'intimé et les principes d'une procédure régulière l'emportant.
- 11 March 2024 Netgear International v Huawei (CoA, 11 March 2024) Appeal RoP220.2 · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision
La cour d'appel annule partiellement l'ordonnance de la division locale de Munich du 18 janvier 2024 et fixe au 18 avril 2024 le délai de défense, et de demande reconventionnelle en nullité, sur le brevet ajouté par Huawei.
- 11 March 2024 NETGEAR Deutschland v Huawei (CoA, 11 March 2024) Appeal RoP220.2 · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision
La cour d'appel annule partiellement l'ordonnance de la division locale de Munich du 18 janvier 2024 et fixe au 18 avril 2024 le délai de défense, et de demande reconventionnelle en nullité, sur le brevet ajouté par Huawei.
- 21 March 2024 Netgear v Huawei (CoA, 21 March 2024) Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision
Seule la formation statue sur la recevabilité d'une demande de réexamen de la règle 333, la décision du juge-rapporteur de joindre l'exception préliminaire au fond peut faire l'objet d'un tel réexamen, et l'affaire est renvoyée à la division locale de Munich.
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Infringement Action
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- L'extension de l'action en contrefaçon à EP 3 678 321 est autorisée, la valeur du litige est portée à 2 millions d'euros et les parties sont invitées à s'exprimer sur une disjonction.
- Appeal
- An appeal is documented in the corpus (see above).
- Instance
- First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.
Patents mentioned
EP 3 678 321mentioned in: summary of the decision, Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patentEP 3 611 989mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Huawei v Netgear Deutschland (CFI, 19 February 2024) cited in this record
- Huawei v Netgear (CFI, 9 February 2024) cited in this record
- Netgear Deutschland v Huawei (CFI, 18 January 2024) cited in this record
- Netgear Deutschland v Huawei (CFI, 11 December 2023) cited in this record
- Huawei v Netgear (CFI, ORD_593105/2023, 11 December 2023) cited in this record
- Huawei Technologies v Netgear (CFI, 3 October 2023) cited in this record
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 3 678 321Resource scheduling method, apparatus, and device recorded proprietor: Huawei Technologies Co Ltd | Patent at issue according to the summary or official headnote Also mentioned in 16 other decision(s): Huawei Technologies v NETGEAR Deutschland (CFI, 8 May 2024) · Netgear Deutschland v Huawei (CFI, 18 January 2024) · Huawei v Netgear (CFI, ORD_593105/2023, 11 December 2023) · Huawei Technologies v TP-Link Systems (CFI, 18 November 2025) · Huawei Technologies v Netgear (CFI, 13 January 2025) · Netgear Deutschland v Huawei Technologies (CFI, 10 January 2025) · Huawei Technologies v Netgear Deutschland (CFI, ORD_1780/2025, 10 Janu · Huawei v Netgear International (CFI, 2 January 2025) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet · 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: summary of the decision, Dhenne Avocats analysis |
EP 3 611 989Method and apparatus for transmitting wireless local area network information recorded proprietor: Huawei Technologies Co Ltd | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 19 other decision(s): Huawei v Netgear (CFI, ORD_598540/2023, 18 December 2024) · Huawei Technologies v Sercomm (CFI, 8 July 2026) · Huawei Technologies v Netgear (CFI, 13 January 2025) · Huawei Technologies v Netgear Deutschland (CFI, ORD_1830/2025, 10 Janu · Netgear Deutschland v Huawei Technologies (CFI, 10 January 2025) · Netgear v Huawei Technologies (CFI, 27 December 2024) · Huawei v Netgear (CFI, 11 December 2024) · Huawei v Netgear International (CFI, 9 September 2024) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet · 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 |
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.