Opens in a new tab

Huawei Technologies v MediaTek (CFI, ORD_18799/2025, 13 May 2025)

Date13 May 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionMunich (DE) Local Division
Type of actionGeneric application
Registry referenceApp_18695/2025 · ORD_18799/2025
PartiesMediaTek 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.

Contact the firm

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

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
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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

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

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

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 4 142 215
Method 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 recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · 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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.