Huawei Technologies v Sercomm (CFI, 8 July 2026)
| Date | 8 July 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Munich (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Infringement Action |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_1271/2026 |
| Registry reference | UPC_CFI_1271/2026 |
| Parties | Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v. Sercomm Corporation a.o. |
Summary pending review. Official UPC registry metadata imported on 24 September 2026.
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Case timeline
- 12 October 2026 : Huawei v Sercomm Italia (CFI, 12 October 2026) UPC-CFI-0001271/2026
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
English summary awaiting review. Read the French case note.
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
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.
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
- defendantSercomm Corporation a.oFollow this party
Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
- 8 July 2026 Huawei Technologies v Sercomm (CFI, 8 July 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_1271/2026
- 12 October 2026 Huawei v Sercomm Italia (CFI, 12 October 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_1271/2026
La division locale de Munich ordonne, au titre de la règle 275, la signification sur support papier au représentant de Sercomm Italia de deux ordonnances, après l’échec des tentatives à son adresse enregistrée.
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Infringement Action
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- Les parties sont convoquées à une seconde audience intermédiaire le 16 avril 2027 et à l'audience orale le 5 mai 2027, la disjonction à l'égard des défenderesses non encore citées est réservée.
- Appeal
- No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
- Instance
- First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.
Patents mentioned
EP 3 611 989mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Huawei v Sercomm Italia (CFI, 12 October 2026) cites this decision
Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 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) · Huawei Technologies v Netgear Deutschland (CFI, 30 August 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 |
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.
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.