Huawei v Netgear (CFI, 11 December 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 11 December 2024 (UPC_CFI_791/2024, ACT_65376/2024), the presiding judge of panel 1 of the Munich Local Division, sitting as single judge, prohibited Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited and Netgear Deutschland GmbH, without hearing them, from pursuing the anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunction application filed before a US federal court against Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd, holder of patents declared essential to the WiFi 6 standard. The order bases the UPC’s jurisdiction for such a measure on Art. 32(1)(a) and (c) UPCA and treats interference with an infringement action as an infringement of the patentee’s property right. It is directly relevant to SEP holders facing foreign injunctions designed to stall their UPC actions.

Facts and procedure

Huawei is suing for infringement of EP 3 611 989 and EP 3 678 321 before the Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_9/2023 and UPC_CFI_168/2024) and before German courts. On 30 January 2024 Netgear Inc. brought an antitrust action before the US District Court for the Central District of California, followed by an anti-suit injunction application, of which Huawei learned on 4 December 2024, with a hearing set for 24 January 2025. Huawei applied on 9 December 2024 and, after technical difficulties in the CMS, again on 11 December 2024. The judge sat alone (Rule 208.2), panel 2 having already accepted the admissibility in principle of such applications on 9 December 2024.

The applicable law

International jurisdiction rests on Art. 31 UPCA and Art. 71b(2) of the Brussels I recast Regulation, the place of the threatened harmful event being within the UPC territory. Provisional measures fall under Art. 62 and Art. 32(1)(c), and ex parte procedure under Rules 206.3, 209.2(c) and 212.1. The judge relied on the right of access to a court in Art. 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, on the protection of intellectual property (Art. 17(2)) and, for the German part of the patents (Art. 24(1)(e) UPCA), on Art. 2(1) and 19(4) of the Basic Law and Sections 823(1) and 1004 of the German Civil Code, leaving open which law applies across the board.

Question

May the UPC, by an ex parte provisional measure, prohibit a party from pursuing abroad an application intended to prevent the patentee from suing or enforcing decisions before the UPC?

Decision

The judge accepted subject-matter jurisdiction: Art. 32(1)(c) covers provisional measures linked to actions under Art. 32(1)(a), and a prohibition on asserting the patent interferes with the patentee’s property right and is treated as an infringement. Jurisdiction is confined to European patents not opted out (Art. 83(3)), which the operative part reflects. The US injunction sought would unlawfully interfere with the right of access to a court, even beyond the patents already asserted. A threat of first infringement was found at least as regards Netgear International and Netgear Deutschland, since group companies might join the US application.

Urgency was established: Huawei had not delayed, even taking 20 November 2024 as the date of knowledge, and the US order could be issued and enforced quickly. Hearing the defendants first could prompt a counter-measure in the US. The order prohibits pursuit of the application, requires its withdrawal within 24 hours of service, subject to a penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per day, and obliges the defendants to use their corporate-law powers over group companies. It is immediately enforceable, but ceases to be so unless security of EUR 3,000,000, aligned with the value in dispute, is provided within 20 days (Rules 211.5 and 352). The remainder of the application was rejected.

Key points for practice

• The UPC accepts jurisdiction to grant an anti-anti-suit injunction under Art. 32(1)(a) and (c) UPCA.
• Foreign interference with an action or enforcement before the UPC is treated as an infringement of the patentee’s property right and of the right of access to a court.
• The measure is limited to patents within the UPC’s jurisdiction, excluding opted-out patents.
• Practical point: the patentee must act within days of learning of the foreign application and be ready to provide substantial security, here based on the value in dispute.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 24(1)(e), Art. 31, Art. 32(1)(a) and (c), Art. 60(6) and (8), Art. 62, Art. 82 and Art. 83(3)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 8.5, 13.1(q), 118.5, 197.3, 206, 208.2, 209.2(c), 211.5, 212.1, 212.3, 213.1, 262A, 352 and 354

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Art. 71b(2)

Case law cited

Avago Technologies International Sales v Realtek Semiconductor, Munich Local Division, 9 December 2024 (UPC_CFI_755/2024), Düsseldorf Local Division, 31 October 2024, Valeo Electrification v Magna PT (UPC_CFI_347/2024), Häfele v Kunststoff Nehl, Munich Local Division, 25 November 2024 (UPC_CFI_443/2024), Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024, Ortovox v Mammut

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.