Huawei v MediaTek (CFI, 1 August 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 1 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_254/2025, ACT_14180/2025, ORD_33620/2025), Judge Voß, presiding judge and judge rapporteur of the Munich Local Division, classified as confidential the information on licence negotiations between Huawei and the MediaTek group contained in MediaTek Germany’s request for production of licence agreements (Rule 190 RoP) in Huawei’s infringement action on EP 4 142 215. On Huawei’s side, access is restricted to its representatives and seventeen named natural persons, in line with the confidentiality agreement concluded by the parties on 11 July 2025. The same order is published under two register entries.

Question

Can licence negotiation information contained in a request for production of documents be protected under the Rule 262A RoP regime, and are the opposing party’s experts covered?

Decision

The judge applies Rules 262.2 and 262A.1 RoP by analogy, leaving open whether they apply directly, since any gap would be unintended in light of Art. 9 of Directive (EU) 2016/943 (paragraphs 6 to 10). The information is undisputedly a trade secret within Art. 2(1) of the Directive, and the interest in secrecy outweighs the public interest (paragraph 11). The confidentiality obligation binds everyone involved in the proceedings, including law firm staff and court-appointed experts, but not experts chosen by the parties (paragraphs 12 and 13). Huawei may have the submissions analysed by its own experts by naming them later, without any immediate extension of access (paragraph 14). The circle adopted reflects the parties’ agreement, which Huawei does not dispute (paragraphs 15 to 18). The remaining heads of the application are reserved (paragraphs 20 and 21).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a party wishing to involve its private experts in confidential information must name them, they are not automatically covered by the order.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 45, 58 and 60

Rules of Procedure

Rules 105.2, 115, 190, 262, 262A and 365

Other provisions

Directive (EU) 2016/943, Arts 2(1) and 9.

Case law cited

Nokia v Amazon, Munich Local Division, 6 February 2025 (UPC_CFI_399/2023), Nokia v Acer, Munich Local Division, 19 May 2025 (UPC_CFI_293/2025), Daedalus Prime v Xiaomi, Court of Appeal, 12 February 2025 (UPC_CoA_621/2024), NST v Qualcomm, Court of Appeal, 3 July 2025 (UPC_CoA_221/2025).

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.