Netgear v Huawei Technologies (CFI, 27 December 2024)

Date	27 December 2024
Court	CFI
Division	Munich (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_47098/2024 · ORD_54426/2024
Parties	Netgear International Limited, Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH

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 an order of 27 December 2024 (UPC_CFI_152/2024, ORD_54426/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division (Judge Zigann) joined to the file of Netgear’s action for a declaration of non-infringement against Huawei (EP 3 678 321 and EP 3 611 989) the licence agreement between Huawei and Qualcomm already filed as Exhibit K68 in UPC_CFI_9/2023, while maintaining the confidentiality measures ordered on 25 April 2024. He also asked for the technically qualified judge sitting in UPC_CFI_168/2024 to be assigned. The order offers a simple route for reusing a confidential exhibit across proceedings.

Question

How can a confidential exhibit filed in other proceedings between the same parties be brought into the file, and under what protection?

Decision

Joining the exhibit was efficient, as it avoided a fresh production order. Huawei, which did not object, must re-file it within 20 days together with applications under Rules 262.2 and 262A, so that the need for confidentiality is recorded in the case management system. Continued application of the confidentiality measures was ordered immediately. Assigning technically qualified judge Patrice Vidon was justified by the common issues on the exhaustion defence based on that agreement and by the joint hearing on 25 March 2025. Either party may request a panel review (Rule 333).

Key points for practice

Practical point: to reuse a confidential exhibit from other proceedings, re-file it with a Rule 262A application, the order carries over the earlier protection.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 102.2, 262.2, 262A 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.

Going further

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

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

claimantNetgear Inc.22 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantNetgear Deutschland GmbHnormalised name: NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH20 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantNetgear International Limited19 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: Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Le contrat de licence Huawei Qualcomm, produit dans une autre affaire, est versé au dossier, à redéposer sous 20 jours, avec maintien des mesures de confidentialité.
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 3 678 321 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
EP 3 611 989 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

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 3 678 321` Resource scheduling method, apparatus, and device recorded proprietor: Huawei Technologies Co Ltd	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 16 other decision(s): Huawei Technologies v NETGEAR Deutschland (CFI, 8 May 2024) · Netgear Deutschland v Huawei (CFI, 18 January 2024) · Huawei v Netgear (CFI, ORD_593105/2023, 11 December 2023) · Huawei v Netgear (CFI, ORD_587438/2023, 11 December 2023) · Huawei Technologies v TP-Link Systems (CFI, 18 November 2025) · Huawei Technologies v Netgear (CFI, 13 January 2025) · Netgear Deutschland v Huawei Technologies (CFI, 10 January 2025) · Huawei Technologies v Netgear Deutschland (CFI, ORD_1780/2025, 10 Janu	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet · 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
`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) · Huawei v Netgear (CFI, 11 December 2024) · Huawei v Netgear International (CFI, 9 September 2024) · Huawei Technologies v Netgear Deutschland (CFI, 30 August 2024)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet · 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.