Huawei Technologies v MediaTek (CFI, 11 September 2025)

Date	11 September 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Mannheim (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Application RoP262A
Registry reference	App_33378/2025 · ORD_33830/2025
Parties	MediaTek Germany GmbH v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.

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 a provisional order of 11 September 2025 (UPC_CFI_247/2025), the presiding judge of the Mannheim Local Division protected under Rule 262A the technical information in MediaTek Germany’s Statement of Defence and revocation counterclaim on the operation of certain chips, in Huawei’s infringement action (EP 3 567 731). Six members of Huawei’s IP department were given access, but not the proposed technical expert. The order shows how the division calibrates the confidentiality circle in a dispute combining technical and FRAND issues.

Question

Should technical information whose revealing nature the claimant disputes be protected, and which of the claimant’s personnel may have access to it?

Decision

The marked information is protectable at this stage: costly evidence-taking on whether it reveals anything is not appropriate, and the balance of interests (Rule 262A.5) favours protection, given access for six persons and the defendants’ undisputed confidentiality undertakings (paragraph 10). Protection of a witness’s name was refused, since such names are already redacted for third-party access under the GDPR (paragraph 11). Access was granted to six persons drawn mainly from the existing FRAND club or the club in the parallel national proceedings. The technical expert was excluded for lack of information on reliability (paragraph 12). Separate circles for each round of pleadings were held impracticable (paragraph 13). Any culpable breach exposes the person to a penalty payment.

Key points for practice

A party disputing the confidentiality of technical information cannot require in-depth evidence-taking at the Rule 262A stage.
Access for a technical expert requires information on that person’s reliability. Failing that, IP counsel are assumed to suffice.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 262.2 and 262A
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR): cited at paragraph 11

Related decisions

Huawei v MediaTek, 16 September 2025, order on production of comparable licences (Rule 190).

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: Standard essential patent (SEP), FRAND offer and counter-offer, Injunctions and standard essential patents, Confidentiality club.

Dhenne Avocats blog: FRAND at the UPC: What the Court Has Decided, What Remains Open.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Munich’s FRAND Guidelines: A Compass Drawn Too Finely, Tesla v. InterDigital and the FRAND Undertaking Inside the Pool (Kluwer Patent Blog).

Further reading: M. Dhenne, “Calculation of FRAND Royalties: An Overview of Practices Around the World”, European Intellectual Property Review 2019, vol. 41, no. 12, p. 754. M. Dhenne, “Conversant v LG: What about FRAND in France?”, European Intellectual Property Review 2019, vol. 41, no. 9, p. 585.

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

defendantHuawei Technologies Co. Ltd.42 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
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: Application RoP262A
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Les informations techniques de la défense sont protégées et l'accès limité à six juristes de la demanderesse, à l'exclusion de l'expert technique proposé. La protection du nom d'un témoin est refusée.
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 3 567 731 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Huawei Technologies v MediaTek (CFI, 16 September 2025) cited in this record

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 3 567 731`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 3 other decision(s): Huawei v MediaTek (CFI, 15 October 2025) · Huawei Technologies v MediaTek (CFI, 16 September 2025) · Huawei Technologies v MediaTek (CFI, 4 September 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.