Short Summary
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning a patent infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies against MediaTek regarding European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1. The dispute centers on MediaTek's request under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure for the production of license agreements, and Huawei's corresponding request under Rule 262A to classify certain information as confidential or strictly confidential. The order addresses the protection of confidential information in connection with Huawei's submission responding to the production request, referencing a confidentiality agreement between the parties.
Detailed Summary
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd, a Chinese technology company headquartered in Shenzhen, filed a patent infringement action against MediaTek, Inc. (a Taiwanese company based in Hsinchu) and MediaTek Germany GmbH (based in Düsseldorf). The patent in suit is European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1. The case is assigned to Panel 2 of the Local Division Munich, with Presiding Judge Ulrike Voß serving as Rapporteur. The proceedings are conducted in German.
Huawei alleges that MediaTek infringes the patent-in-suit by offering and selling chips of the "Dimensity" series in the EPC contracting member states. These chips, which are 5G-capable, are reportedly installed in smartphones and tablets manufactured by various mobile device makers. Prior to filing suit, Huawei engaged in licensing negotiations with MediaTek Inc. concerning Huawei's portfolio of standard-essential patents for 4G and 5G standards, but those negotiations were unsuccessful. In its complaint, Huawei addressed these negotiations and preemptively addressed a potential competition law objection from MediaTek.
On 24 July 2025, MediaTek Germany filed a statement of defense (non-technical part) in which it raised a competition law compulsory license defense. Simultaneously, MediaTek filed a request for the production of license agreements pursuant to Rule 190 RoP, along with a related request under Rule 262A RoP for the protection of confidential information. By order dated 1 August 2025, the court largely granted the request for protection of confidential information insofar as it was ready for decision. Huawei then filed its statement on the production request on 15 August 2025, also submitting a request under Rule 262A RoP, relying in support on a confidentiality agreement concluded between the parties.
Huawei's requests seek an order classifying certain categories of information as confidential or strictly confidential under Rules 262.2 and 262A. Specifically, Huawei requests that (I) information highlighted in grey in its 15 August 2025 submission, along with associated annexes, figures, and overviews marked "CONFIDENTIAL" or "vertraulich," be classified as confidential; and (II) information highlighted in yellow and additionally framed in red bold print, along with associated annexes, figures, and overviews marked "CONFIDENTIAL" or "streng vertraulich," be classified as strictly confidential. Huawei further requests that this classification extend to the information itself, so that it remains protected even when reproduced in further submissions or annexes.
& Analysis: The order was issued by the Presiding Judge Ulrike Voß as Rapporteur. The procedural order addresses the parties' respective positions on the protection of confidential information arising from Huawei's submission responding to MediaTek's Rule 190 production request. The court considered the confidentiality agreement between the parties as a relevant factor in evaluating Huawei's Rule 262A request.
Final Order & Ruling: The text of the judgment is truncated and does not contain the full operative provisions of the order. Based on the available text, the order was issued on 21 August 2025 as a procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung) by the Court of First Instance, addressing the parties' requests regarding the classification of confidential and strictly confidential information in connection with the Rule 190 production request proceedings.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Munich (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. vs MediaTek Germany GmbH, MediaTek, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Edwards Lifesciences CorporationvsMeril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This procedural order concerns an infringement action regarding European patent EP 3 646 825 before the Local Division Munich. The Defendants (Meril) filed late applications requesting the Court to approach the European Commission regarding ongoing antitrust investigations into the Claimant (Edwards Lifesciences) and to reopen the written procedure. The Court rejected the requests as untimely, finding they were filed after the closure of the written procedure and the oral hearing, and noted that no formal investigation had been opened by the European Commission.
EJP Maschinen GmbHvsMSG Maschinenbau GmbH
This cost-setting proceeding arose from a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 225 320 B1, in which the plaintiff MSG Maschinenbau GmbH sued defendant EJP Maschinen GmbH. After the EPO Board of Appeal revoked the patent in its entirety, MSG withdrew the main infringement claim, and the court ordered MSG to bear the costs of both the infringement and revocation proceedings. EJP filed an application seeking reimbursement of €20,797.00 in costs for the infringement proceedings, and the court assessed the reasonableness and proportionality of the claimed cost items under Article 69 of the UPC Agreement and Rules 150–152 of the Rules of Procedure.
HGSystem ApS, Rune Eilertsen, Infotech Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, HGSystem Holding ApSvsRespondent
This case concerned a review of an ex parte evidence preservation order issued by the Local Division in Copenhagen in relation to European Patent No. 4 238 202 B1. Hybridgenerator ApS, the requesting party, sought confirmation of the order, while HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, and Infotech Holding ApS sought its revocation or modification. The court conducted a review hearing on November 28, 2024, and issued its ruling on December 19, 2024.
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATIONvsMERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB, SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, MERIL GMBH, SORMEDICA, UAB, INTERLUX, UAB
This is a procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Nordic-Baltic Regional Division) in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP3769722. The order addresses multiple case management issues raised during an interim conference, including the value of the case, scheduling relative to parallel EPO opposition proceedings, admissibility of late-filed attacks on inventive step, and various other procedural requests. The Court set the total case value at 6,000,000 EUR, declined to reschedule the oral hearing, excluded certain late-filed inventive step attacks, and ruled on the admissibility of auxiliary requests, equivalence arguments, and expert-related requests.
Fujifilm CorporationvsKodak GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
This is a preparatory order issued by the Mannheim Local Division in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 476 616, brought by FUJIFILM Corporation against three Kodak entities. The order sets out preliminary views and questions ahead of the oral hearing scheduled for 11–13 February 2025, addressing issues including the scope of remedies, applicable law for pre- and post-UPCA infringing acts, the value of the dispute, prior use defences, and validity questions concerning prior art documents WO 379 and US 952.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.