Opens in a new tab

Netgear Deutschland v Huawei (CFI, 11 December 2023)

Date11 December 2023
CourtCFI
DivisionMunich (DE) Local Division
Type of actionInfringement Action
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_9/2023
Registry referenceORD_586381/2023 · UPC_CFI_9/2023
PartiesNetgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

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 order of 11 December 2023 (UPC_CFI_9/2023, App_586381/2023), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division rejected as inadmissible an application by the Netgear companies, defendants in Huawei Technologies’ infringement action on EP 3 611 989, for panel review under Rule 333 RoP of his notice that their preliminary objection would be dealt with in the main proceedings (Rule 20.2 RoP). The order closes a route some defendants might be tempted to use and settles who rules on an inadmissible request for review.

Question

Can the judge-rapporteur’s notice that a preliminary objection will be dealt with in the main proceedings be appealed or reviewed by the panel under Rule 333.1 RoP, and who decides an inadmissible request for review?

Decision

A notice under Rule 20.2 RoP is neither a decision allowing the objection nor an order rejecting it, the English and French texts distinguishing between « decision » and « order ». No appeal therefore lies against it. Rule 333.1 RoP covers only decisions or orders of the judge-rapporteur or presiding judge and does not apply to such a notice. The rule serves procedural economy: the judge-rapporteur may decide the objection at once or defer it to the decision on the merits. As Rule 333 RoP does not apply, the inadmissible request is decided by the judge-rapporteur rather than the panel. The order can be challenged only together with the decision on the merits.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rules 19, 20.2, 21.1, 220.1(a), 220.2 and 333

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.


Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

Lexicon: Patent infringement action.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).

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

  • UPC_CFI_9/2023 official number

Follow this case

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 3 October 2023 Huawei Technologies v Netgear (CFI, 3 October 2023) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_9/2023

    Le juge rapporteur accordera la protection de la règle 262A dès son dépôt dans le circuit approprié, renvoie le huis clos à la formation d'audience, diffère la confidentialité du jugement et rejette l'extension des obligations à des tiers.

  2. 11 December 2023 Netgear Deutschland v Huawei (CFI, 11 December 2023) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_9/2023
  3. 11 December 2023 Huawei v Netgear (CFI, ORD_593105/2023, 11 December 2023) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_9/2023

    La division locale de Munich invite les défenderesses à se prononcer sous quatorze jours sur la disjonction de l'extension de l'action au brevet EP 3 678 321, la demanderesse pouvant répondre sous sept jours.

  4. 11 December 2023 Huawei v Netgear (CFI, ORD_587438/2023, 11 December 2023) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_9/2023

    L'extension de l'action en contrefaçon à EP 3 678 321 est autorisée, la valeur du litige est portée à 2 millions d'euros et les parties sont invitées à s'exprimer sur une disjonction.

  5. 18 January 2024 Netgear Deutschland v Huawei (CFI, 18 January 2024) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_9/2023

    La formation confirme l'admission de l'extension de l'action de Huawei au brevet EP 3 678 321, fixe le terme du délai de défense sur l'extension au 11 mars 2024 et autorise l'appel.

  6. 9 February 2024 Huawei v Netgear (CFI, 9 February 2024) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_9/2023

    Faute d'accord de la demanderesse, la langue de la procédure reste l'allemand. Les audiences se tiendront toutefois en anglais, les représentants y ayant consenti, et des traductions de travail anglaises des écritures sont demandées.

  7. 19 February 2024 Huawei v Netgear Deutschland (CFI, 19 February 2024) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_9/2023

    La division locale de Munich juge efficace le dépôt combiné de Huawei du 29 janvier 2024, fixe le calendrier et l'audience de juin 2024 et fixe la valeur de la procédure à 2 millions d'euros.

  8. 22 February 2024 Netgear v Huawei Technologies (CoA, ORD_9613/2024, 22 February 2024) Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision

    La cour d'appel rejette la demande de Netgear d'abréger le délai de réponse de Huawei, déposée le dernier jour de son propre délai, les intérêts de l'intimé et les principes d'une procédure régulière l'emportant.

  9. 22 February 2024 Netgear v Huawei Technologies (CoA, ORD_9612/2024, 22 February 2024) Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision

    La cour d'appel rejette la demande de Netgear d'abréger le délai de réponse de Huawei, déposée le dernier jour de son propre délai, les intérêts de l'intimé et les principes d'une procédure régulière l'emportant.

  10. 11 March 2024 Netgear International v Huawei (CoA, 11 March 2024) Appeal RoP220.2 · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision

    La cour d'appel annule partiellement l'ordonnance de la division locale de Munich du 18 janvier 2024 et fixe au 18 avril 2024 le délai de défense, et de demande reconventionnelle en nullité, sur le brevet ajouté par Huawei.

  11. 11 March 2024 NETGEAR Deutschland v Huawei (CoA, 11 March 2024) Appeal RoP220.2 · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision

    La cour d'appel annule partiellement l'ordonnance de la division locale de Munich du 18 janvier 2024 et fixe au 18 avril 2024 le délai de défense, et de demande reconventionnelle en nullité, sur le brevet ajouté par Huawei.

  12. 21 March 2024 Netgear v Huawei (CoA, 21 March 2024) Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision

    Seule la formation statue sur la recevabilité d'une demande de réexamen de la règle 333, la décision du juge-rapporteur de joindre l'exception préliminaire au fond peut faire l'objet d'un tel réexamen, et l'affaire est renvoyée à la division locale de Munich.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
L'avis du juge rapporteur renvoyant l'exception préliminaire au fond n'est ni une décision ni une ordonnance au sens de la règle 333.1, la demande de réexamen par la formation est irrecevable et c'est le juge rapporteur qui la rejette.
Appeal
An appeal is documented in the corpus (see above).
Instance
First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 3 611 989
Method and apparatus for transmitting wireless local area network information
recorded proprietor: Huawei Technologies Co Ltd		Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 19 other decision(s): Huawei v Netgear (CFI, ORD_598540/2023, 18 December 2024) · Huawei Technologies v Sercomm (CFI, 8 July 2026) · Huawei Technologies v Netgear (CFI, 13 January 2025) · Huawei Technologies v Netgear Deutschland (CFI, ORD_1830/2025, 10 Janu · Netgear Deutschland v Huawei Technologies (CFI, 10 January 2025) · Netgear v Huawei Technologies (CFI, 27 December 2024) · Huawei v Netgear (CFI, 11 December 2024) · Huawei v Netgear International (CFI, 9 September 2024)		not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · European Patent Register
existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically)
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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.