Huawei Technologies v MediaTek (CFI, 16 September 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 16 September 2025 (UPC_CFI_247/2025, App_33294/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division partly granted MediaTek Germany’s request for production of documents (Rule 190) in Huawei’s infringement action (EP 3 567 731). Huawei must file with its reply seven licence agreements relied on as FRAND comparables, but not the other agreements or the amendments requested. The order clarifies who bears the burden of comparables in standard essential patent cases.

Question

Can the holder of a standard essential patent be ordered to produce, beyond the comparables it relies on, further licences and all their amendments?

Decision

Production was ordered of the agreements Huawei was willing to produce and for which the counterparties’ consent could not be obtained, with passages it does not rely on open to redaction. The rest was rejected: absent serious indications of more suitable comparables, the choice of comparables lies primarily with the patent holder, which bears the risk, only deliberate withholding of suitable comparables to impose inflated rates would have procedural consequences. The request for all amendments and side agreements was too broad. Failure to produce may be taken into account (Rule 190.7 by analogy), and confidentiality orders (Rule 262A) are expected.

Key points for practice

• In FRAND disputes, the defendant obtains production of the comparables relied on, not a general search of the patent holder’s licence portfolio.
• A patent holder that selects its comparables bears the risk that they prove insufficient.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 59 and 73(2)(a)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.2, 190, 220.1(c), 224.1(b), 262A and 334(e)

Case law cited

Panasonic v Xiaomi, Mannheim Local Division, 30 April 2024 (UPC_CFI_223/2023), Panasonic v OPPO, Mannheim Local Division, 16 May 2024, OPPO v Panasonic, Court of Appeal, 24 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_298-300/2024)

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.