Opens in a new tab

Huawei v TP-Link Systems (CoA, 17 December 2025)

Date17 December 2025
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionAppeal RoP220.2
Case number(s)UPC_CoA_926/2025;UPC_CoA_927/2025
Registry referenceUPC_CoA_0000926/2025 · UPC_CoA_0000927/2025
PartiesHuawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v. TP-Link Systems Inc., TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, TP-Link Enterprises France SARL, TP-LINK Enterprises Netherlan…

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 19 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

The Court of Appeal orders, without hearing TP-Link, that Huawei’s appeals have suspensive effect for the duration of the proceedings and that TP-Link is not to have access to the pleadings covered by the order of the Munich Local Division of 28 November 2025 (operative part, I). Under Article 74(1) UPCA, suspensive effect is justified where an order granting access under Rule 262.1(b) RoP would become enforceable before the Court rules, since access would then be obtained in fact and the appeal would become devoid of purpose (paras. 9 to 11, citing Ocado v Autostore, 6 November 2023). As access was due to take place on 18 December 2025, urgency justified the absence of a prior hearing. TP-Link may comment within the time limit for the response to the appeal and the Court reserves the right to set the order aside (para. 12, operative part, II).

Why it matters

Access to the file is irreversible: once the documents have been disclosed, the appeal loses its purpose. Protection remains provisional, and the order was set aside on 17 February 2026, when the Court dismissed the appeal on the merits.

Practical point

Request suspensive effect in the statement of appeal itself, stating the date on which access will take effect. This measure does not replace a request complying with Rule 262.2.

Summary prepared by Dhenne Avocats. Only the official text of the decision is authoritative.

Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

Lexicon: UPC Court of Appeal, Standard essential patent (SEP), FRAND offer and counter-offer, Injunctions and standard essential patents.

Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show, FRAND at the UPC: What the Court Has Decided, What Remains Open.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Munich’s FRAND Guidelines: A Compass Drawn Too Finely, Tesla v. InterDigital and the FRAND Undertaking Inside the Pool (Kluwer Patent Blog).

Further reading: M. Dhenne, “Calculation of FRAND Royalties: An Overview of Practices Around the World”, European Intellectual Property Review 2019, vol. 41, no. 12, p. 754. M. Dhenne, “Conversant v LG: What about FRAND in France?”, European Intellectual Property Review 2019, vol. 41, no. 9, p. 585.

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.

Proceedings

  • UPC_CoA_926/2025 official number
  • UPC_CoA_927/2025 official number

Follow these proceedings

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 17 December 2025 Huawei v TP-Link Systems (CoA, 17 December 2025) Appeal RoP220.2 · UPC_CoA_926/2025, UPC_CoA_927/2025
  2. 17 February 2026 Huawei v TP-Link Systems (CoA, 17 February 2026) Appeal RoP220.2 · UPC_CoA_926/2025, UPC_CoA_927/2025

    La cour d'appel rejette les appels de Huawei contre les ordonnances de la division locale de Munich du 28 novembre 2025, qui ouvraient à TP-Link l'accès à des écritures des actions closes entre Huawei et Netgear, portant sur le brevet opposé à TP-Link (§ 1, 2 et 20 à 23). L'intérêt du public à consulter les écritures s…

What the record states

Nature of the act
Appeal RoP220.2
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La cour d'appel ordonne, sans entendre TP-Link, que les appels de Huawei aient un effet suspensif pour la durée de l'instance et que TP-Link n'ait pas accès aux écritures visées par l'ordonnance de la division locale de Munich du 28 novembre 2025 (dispositif, I). Au regard de l'article 74(1) AJUB, l'effet suspensif se justifie lorsqu'une ordonnance accordant l'accès au titre de la règle 262.1(b) RoP deviendrait exécutoire avant que la cour ne statue, l'accès étant alors acquis en fait et l'appel privé d'objet (§ 9 à 11, citant Ocado c. Autostore, 6 novembre 2023). L'accès devant intervenir le 18 décembre 2025, l'urgence justifie l'absence d'audition préalable. TP-Link pourra s'exprimer dans le délai de réponse à l'appel et la cour se réserve de rapporter l'ordonnance (§ 12, dispositif, II).
Appeal
Decision of the Court of Appeal.
Instance
Court of Appeal decision.

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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.

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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.