Huawei Technologies v MediaTek (CFI, ORD_18799/2025, 13 May 2025)
| Date | 13 May 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Munich (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Generic application |
| Registry reference | App_18695/2025 · ORD_18799/2025 |
| Parties | MediaTek Germany GmbH |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
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 an order of 13 May 2025 (UPC_CFI_254/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division classified as confidential the highlighted information in Huawei Technologies’ statement of claim in its infringement action against MediaTek (EP 4 142 215). The order binds every person with access to the file through participation in the proceedings, the claimant included, to keep that information confidential, even after the proceedings end. It fills by analogy a gap in the Rules of Procedure on duties of confidentiality towards third parties.
Question
Can a duty of confidentiality be imposed on everyone taking part in the proceedings, rather than on the opposing party alone, and continue after they end?
Decision
Rule 262A allows access by the opposing party to be restricted and Rule 262.2 restricts public access to the register. Leaving open whether Rule 262A directly covers a duty of confidentiality towards third parties, the judge found such a duty by analogy, consistent with Art. 9 of the Trade Secrets Directive. The designated information comprises trade secrets of both parties and is covered by non-disclosure agreements. Only the highlighted passages are protected, not the whole statement of claim (section II). The duty binds all persons involved in the proceedings (section III) and continues after they close, unless a final decision denies confidentiality or the information becomes public. No restriction of the defendants’ access was needed. Measures for the hearing and publication of the decision were reserved, and exclusion from public access is the subject of a separate application.
Key points for practice
- A party seeking confidentiality must identify the protected passages precisely. The court will not search for information left unredacted by mistake.
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Arts 45, 58 and 60
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 115, 262.1, 262.2, 262A and 264
- Other provisions
- Directive (EU) 2016/943, Art. 9
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.
Going further
Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).
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.
Proceedings
Parties
- claimantMediaTek Germany GmbH12 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Generic application
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- Les passages surlignés du mémoire en demande de Huawei sont confidentiels. Toute personne participant à la procédure doit les garder secrets, y compris après la fin de l'instance.
- 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 4 142 215mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 4 142 215Method and apparatus for obtaining UE security capabilities recorded proprietor: Huawei Technologies Co Ltd | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 7 other decision(s): Huawei Technologies v Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (CoA, 29 June · Huawei Technologies v Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (CoA, UPC_CoA_ · Huawei v MediaTek (CFI, UPC_CFI_1235/2025, 26 March 2026) · Huawei v MediaTek (CFI, UPC_CFI_1234/2025, 26 March 2026) · Huawei v MediaTek (CFI, 26 February 2026) · Huawei v MediaTek (CFI, 1 August 2025) · Huawei v MediaTek Germany (CFI, ORD_33626/2025, 1 August 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: 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.