Huawei Technologies v Netgear Deutschland (CFI, 30 August 2024)

Date	30 August 2024
Court	CFI
Division	Munich (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Hearing
Registry reference	App_31099/2024 · ORD_49424/2024

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 30 August 2024 (UPC_CFI_9/2024, ACT_459771/2023, ORD_49424/2024), issued after the interim conference of 29 August, the presiding judge and judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division (Zigann) organised the final stage of the interim procedure in Huawei Technologies’ infringement action on EP 3 611 989 (Wi-Fi 6, declared standard-essential) against three Netgear companies. He appointed a court expert to translate the Chinese priority documents, refused production of unredacted licences, closed the written procedure on 27 September 2024 and set the oral hearing for 30 and 31 October 2024.

Question

Should the division order an expert translation and full production of licences already filed in partly redacted form?

Decision

An expert is needed for translation: the parties filed diverging translations of the priority application and the Chinese applications, and the division cannot assess disclosure without a single reasoned English translation (Rule 185 RoP), other requests for expert evidence are not pursued. The request for unredacted licences is refused, the point having been finally decided on 15 July 2024, when the partly redacted versions were held sufficient. Huawei may file full versions of its own accord. The late arguments on translation, insufficiency and document D5 are not persuasive, so their lateness need not be ruled upon. Huawei may still reply on exhaustion based on the Qualcomm contracts and on the notice of infringement.

Key points for practice

Practical point: a production issue finally decided during the proceedings cannot be reopened at the interim conference, diverging translations of a priority document may justify appointing a court translation expert.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 104, 105.5, 106, 185 and 333
Case law cited: Netgear v Huawei, Court of Appeal, 21 March 2024

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: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

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

Parties not recorded.

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: Hearing
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Un expert judiciaire est désigné pour traduire les documents de priorité chinois, la production des licences non caviardées est refusée et l'audience est fixée aux 30 et 31 octobre 2024.
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 3 611 989 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Netgear v Huawei (CoA, 21 March 2024) cited in this record

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.