Netgear International v Huawei (CoA, 11 March 2024)

Date	11 March 2024
Court	CoA
Division	Luxembourg (LU)
Type of action	Appeal RoP220.2
Registry reference	APL_4881/2024 · ORD_13025/2024
Parties	Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc. 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 order of 11 March 2024 (UPC_CoA_36/2024, APL_4881/2024), the Court of Appeal partly set aside the order of the Munich Local Division of 18 January 2024, under which the period for Netgear to respond to the extension of Huawei’s infringement action to EP 3 678 321 (UPC_CFI_9/2023) had started on 11 December 2023. It set 18 April 2024 as the deadline for the statement of defence and, where applicable, the counterclaim for revocation. According to the headnote, where a patent is added by amendment of the claim, the defendant must have the same period as if a new action had been brought on that patent.

Question

Where a new patent is asserted by extending a pending action (Rule 263 RoP), what period for the defence must the defendant receive and from when does it run?

Decision

Rule 263 RoP allows an action to be extended to a further patent, the Court having to ensure that the other party is not unreasonably hindered in its defence (paragraphs 3 and 4). Due process requires the same period for the defence of the new patent as for a new action (paragraph 5). Since the Rules do not fix when that period starts, the order admitting the amendment should state it (paragraph 6). As the judge-rapporteur’s order of 11 December 2023 was unclear on this point, the panel should have run the period from service of its own order. The three-month duration not being disputed, the period ends on 18 April 2024 (paragraphs 7 to 10). Netgear had withdrawn its other requests and its application for suspensive effect, Huawei agreeing to a three-month period running from 18 January 2024.

Key points for practice

Extending an action to a new patent gives the defendant a period for its defence, and where applicable its counterclaim for revocation, equivalent to that for a new action (headnote and paragraph 5).
Both parties have an interest in having the order admitting the amendment state when that period starts (paragraph 6).

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 9.3, 225, 263 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: 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

defendantHuawei Technologies Co. Ltd.42 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
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: Appeal RoP220.2
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): 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.
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.