Huawei Technologies v MediaTek (CFI, ORD_18791/2025, 13 May 2025)

Date	13 May 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Munich (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_18691/2025 · ORD_18791/2025
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.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By procedural order of 13 May 2025 (ORD_18791/2025), the judge rapporteur of the Munich Local Division classified as confidential information contained in Huawei Technologies’ statement of claim against MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany in the action for infringement of EP 3 905 840 B1 (UPC_CFI_248/2025). The interest of the order lies in its reach: the confidentiality obligation binds everyone who obtains the information through taking part in the proceedings, not only the parties.

Question

Does Rule 262A allow a confidentiality obligation to be imposed on everyone involved in the proceedings, beyond the opposing party, and should access be restricted on the defendants’ side?

Decision

The order noted that Art. 58 UPCA and Rule 262A cover at least restrictions on access by the opposing party, while Rule 262.2 concerns public access to the register. It left open whether Rule 262A applies directly to third parties, but held that such an obligation would in any event follow by analogy, any gap being unintended since the UPCA and the Rules protect trade secrets in line with Art. 9 of Directive 2016/943 (I). As the parties agreed that the information was secret and covered by their confidentiality agreements, it was classified as confidential (II), the obligation binding all participants and surviving the end of the proceedings (III). No restriction of access on the defendants’ side was ordered, as none had been requested and the secrets were mutual (IV).

Key points for practice

The confidentiality obligation may be extended to everyone taking part in the proceedings, by analogy with Rule 262A where necessary.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Art. 58
Rules of Procedure: Rules 262, 262A and 264
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

claimantMediaTek Germany GmbH12 decisions in the corpus Follow 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

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): La juge rapporteure classe confidentielles les informations désignées par Huawei, impose la confidentialité à toute personne participant à la procédure, y compris après l'instance, et n'ordonne aucune restriction d'accès côté défenderesses.
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 3 905 840 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

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 3 905 840`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 3 other decision(s): Huawei v MediaTek (CFI, UPC_CFI_1234/2025, 26 March 2026) · Huawei Technologies v MediaTek (CFI, 26 August 2025) · Huawei v MediaTek Germany (CFI, ORD_35006/2025, 21 August 2025)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked 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.