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
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
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.