Netgear v Huawei Technologies (CoA, ORD_9612/2024, 22 February 2024)

Date	22 February 2024
Court	CoA
Division	Luxembourg (LU)
Type of action	Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e))
Registry reference	App_7573/2024 · ORD_9612/2024
Parties	Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc.

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 order of 22 February 2024 (UPC_CoA_36/2024, APL_4881/2024, App_7573/2024), the Court of Appeal rejected Netgear’s application to shorten the 15-day period available to Huawei to respond to the statement of grounds of its appeal, lodged against the order of the Munich Local Division of 18 January 2024 upholding the extension of Huawei’s infringement action to EP 3 678 321 (UPC_CFI_9/2023). Netgear relied on the deadline of 11 March 2024 set at first instance for its statement of defence. According to the headnote, an application to shorten time limits filed on the last day of the periods under Rules 224.1(b) and 224.2(b) RoP is rejected having regard to the respondent’s interests and the principles of fair proceedings, even if the statement of defence must then be filed at first instance before the appeal is decided.

Question

Should the Court of Appeal shorten the respondent’s time to respond under Rule 9.3(b) RoP where the appellant has itself used its full time limit to appeal?

Decision

The application was admissible and Huawei did not need to be heard (paragraphs 1 and 2). A respondent has 15 days from service of the statement of grounds of appeal to respond, and that period may be shortened on a reasoned request (paragraphs 3 and 4). Netgear filed its grounds and its application on 7 February 2024, outside business hours, thereby using its own 15-day period in full (paragraph 5). Its application did not give enough weight to Huawei’s interest in adequate time. Granting it would run counter to proportionality, fairness and equity, Huawei’s interests and the principles of fair proceedings outweighing those of Netgear (paragraphs 6 and 7).

Key points for practice

An appellant seeking expedition should act before the end of its own time limit: an application to shorten time filed on the last day is unlikely to succeed (headnote and paragraphs 5 and 6).

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 9.3, 224.1, 224.2, 225 and 333.1

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: UPC Court of Appeal.

Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.

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.

First instance cited in the decision: UPC_CFI_9/2023

Parties

claimantNetgear Inc.22 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantNETGEAR 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

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

What the record states

Nature of the act: Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e))
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): 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.
Appeal: Decision of the Court of Appeal (first instance cited: UPC_CFI_9/2023).
Instance: Court of Appeal decision.

Patents mentioned

EP 3 678 321 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

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.