Netgear v Huawei (CoA, 21 March 2024)

Date	21 March 2024
Court	CoA
Division	Luxembourg (LU)
Type of action	Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
Registry reference	APL_595643/2023 · ORD_598257/2023
Parties	Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH 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 21 March 2024 (UPC_CoA_486/2023, APL_595643/2023), the Court of Appeal set aside the order of the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division of 11 December 2023, which had held inadmissible Netgear’s request under Rule 333 RoP for the panel to review the decision to deal with its preliminary objection in the main proceedings (Huawei’s action, UPC_CFI_9/2023, EP 3 611 989). The request for review was remitted to the panel of the Local Division. The order, which carries a headnote, sets out the route for challenging decisions of the judge-rapporteur: review by the panel first, appeal second.

Question

May the judge-rapporteur alone rule on the admissibility of a request for panel review of his decision to deal with the preliminary objection in the main proceedings (Rule 20.2 RoP), and is such a request admissible?

Decision

Discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP is available only against orders of the panel, so a request under Rule 333.1 RoP must first be decided by the panel (paragraphs 21 and 22). It is the panel, not the judge-rapporteur, that rules on the admissibility of such a request (Rules 333.4 and 1.2 RoP), otherwise a refusal by the judge-rapporteur could never be challenged (paragraphs 24 to 30). The notion of a case management decision or order is to be read broadly and covers a decision under Rule 20.2 RoP, the 15-day period of Rule 333.2 RoP runs from its notification (paragraphs 33 to 36). Rules 20 and 21 RoP do not exclude such review, although the parties have no right to an early decision on the objection (paragraphs 37 to 41). The matter was remitted to the first instance panel (Rule 242.2(b) RoP, paragraphs 31, 42 and 43).

Key points for practice

Case management orders of the judge-rapporteur cannot be appealed directly: the panel must first be seised under Rule 333.1 RoP, within 15 days (headnote and paragraph 36).
A decision to deal with the preliminary objection in the main proceedings may be put to the panel, which reviews the judge-rapporteur’s exercise of discretion (paragraphs 33 to 41).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Recital 6 and Art. 52(2)
Rules of Procedure: Rules 1.2, 19, 20.1, 20.2, 21.1, 102, 220.1, 220.2, 220.3, 220.4, 221.2, 233.2, 242.2, 331.1, 333.1, 333.2, 333.4, 333.5, 334, 350 and 351

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: Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): 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.
Appeal: Decision of the Court of Appeal (first instance cited: UPC_CFI_9/2023).
Instance: Court of Appeal decision.

Patents mentioned

EP 3 611 989 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Huawei Technologies v Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (CoA, 29 June 2026) cites this decision
ALD France v Nanoval (CFI, 26 January 2026) cites this decision
Angelalign Technology v Align Technology (CoA, 6 January 2026) cites this decision
Genevant Sciences v Moderna (CFI, 18 August 2025) cites this decision
Chint New Energy v JingAo Solar (CoA, 9 July 2025) cites this decision
Hanshow Technology v VusionGroup (CoA, 21 February 2025) cites this decision
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR v Texas Instruments Deutschland (CoA, 14 January 2025) cites this decision
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR v Texas Instruments Deutschland (CoA, 27 November 2024) cites this decision
AYLO Premium v DISH Technologies (CoA, 3 September 2024) cites this decision
Huawei Technologies v Netgear Deutschland (CFI, 30 August 2024) cites this decision
Microsoft v Suinno Mobile & AI Licensing (CoA, 21 August 2024) cites this decision
OrthoApnea (CFI, 8 July 2024) cites this decision
Juul Labs v NJOY Netherlands (CoA, ORD_598225/2023, 3 April 2024) cites this decision

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 3 611 989` 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 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.