Huawei Technologies v MediaTek (CFI, 26 August 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 26 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_248/2025, ORD_33901/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division ordered Huawei Technologies, a claimant established in China, to provide MediaTek Germany with security for costs of EUR 150,000 within six weeks in the infringement action on EP 3 905 840 B1. Neither the designation of its German subsidiary to accept service of a costs decision nor its assets in the EU remove the risk attached to enforcement in China.

Question

Can a claimant established in China avoid security for costs by accepting service of a costs decision on its German subsidiary, and how is the amount set?

Decision

No. The defendant need only show disproportionate difficulty of enforcement, not impossibility. Willingness to pay is irrelevant (paragraphs 22 to 25 and 35). The uncontested difficulties of service and enforcement in China make it probable that enforcement would be impossible or unduly burdensome. Since enforcement would follow Chinese law, European assets are irrelevant and service is only the first step (paragraphs 28 to 34). The ceiling for representation costs is EUR 200,000, the values of the action and the counterclaim (EUR 1,000,000 each) being added. As MediaTek, Inc. has not yet been served, MediaTek Germany is treated separately (paragraphs 37 to 41). As the costs incurred were not substantiated, security is set at 75% of the share of the ceiling (paragraph 44). Leave to appeal is not available (paragraph 47).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: an undertaking to accept service in Europe is no substitute for security, a defendant must document its costs to obtain more than 75% of the ceiling.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69

Rules of Procedure

Rules 152, 158.1, 158.3, 158.4, 158.5, 220.2, 333 and 355.1(a)

Directive 2004/48/EC

Art. 47

Case law cited

Ballinno v Kinexon, Court of Appeal, 26 August 2024, NST v Audi, Court of Appeal, 17 September 2024, SodaStream v Aarke, Court of Appeal, 29 November 2024, Chint v JingAo, Court of Appeal, 9 July 2025, Total Semiconductors v Texas Instruments, Court of Appeal, 14 January 2025, Panasonic v Xiaomi, Mannheim Local Division, 31 July 2024 (UPC_CFI_332/2024), air up v Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu, Munich Local Division, 21 January 2025, JingAo v Chint, Munich Local Division, 19 March 2025, Ona Patents v Google, Düsseldorf Local Division, 27 December 2024, Maxeon Solar v Aiko Energy, Düsseldorf Local Division, 14 April 2025, Munich Local Division, 25 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_149/2024)

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.