Executive Summary
In this procedural ruling, Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd sued MediaTek Germany GmbH for patent infringement concerning EP 4 142 215. The court addressed a request by MediaTek to protect confidential information submitted during the proceedings. The UPC granted an order establishing strict confidentiality measures, limiting access to trade secrets to specific parties and counsel. This decision underscores the UPC's commitment to balancing public transparency with the protection of sensitive business interests.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The Court analogously applied Rules 262.2 and 262A of the UPC Rules to protect trade secrets (Geschäftsgeheimnisse) submitted by the defendant. It established strict confidentiality obligations for all parties involved in the proceedings, including limiting access to specific individuals.
Practitioner Note
This decision partially_granted relief to the petitioner. If you are facing a similar patent dispute before Munich (DE) Local Division, this precedent supports interim or final relief where the facts are comparable. The ratio regarding the applied tests is particularly relevant for strategy.
Related Cases
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc.vsThe Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V.
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application regarding the language of proceedings in an infringement action involving InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. and The Walt Disney Company group. The defendants successfully argued that the proceedings should be conducted in English, the language of the patent EP3259902, citing fairness and the business language of the involved parties. The court granted this request, setting a precedent for aligning procedural language with the patent's grant language when supported by all relevant parties.
Belparts Group N.V.vsIMI Hydronic International SA
This procedural order in the Belparts v. IMI Hydronic case confirms the court's decision to proceed with both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation simultaneously, despite potential conflicts between arguments presented in different proceedings. The UPC Local Division Munich set specific dates for future hearings, including an interim videoconference and a full oral hearing scheduled for June 2026. This order highlights the procedural flexibility of the UPC while managing complex litigation strategies involving multiple claims.
Genevant Sciences GmbHvsModerna (various entities)
In a complex case involving fifteen Moderna entities across multiple jurisdictions, the UPC addressed procedural challenges related to service and scheduling deadlines. Claimants Genevant Sciences and Arbutus Biopharma sought extensions due to the global nature of their defendants. The Court rejected the specific extension requests but issued an order setting a unified deadline for all Defendants to file their Statements of Defense, demonstrating how the UPC manages multi-jurisdictional litigation efficiently.
QUANTIFICARE S.A.vsCanfield Scientific, Inc., Canfield Scientific GmbH, Canfield Scientific Europe B.V., Canfield Scientific s.r.l., ESTHETEC SAS
In UPC case UPC_CFI_559/2024, the Local Chamber of Düsseldorf issued a procedural order regarding EP 3 156 843 B1. The court utilized its discretion to streamline the litigation process by deciding early that it would handle both the infringement claim brought by QUANTIFICARE S.A. and the counterclaim for revocation filed by Canfield Scientific and others simultaneously. This decision aims to ensure a unified legal interpretation of the patent claims while maximizing procedural efficiency.
Sun Patent TrustvsVivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect concerning a confidential information order issued by the Court of First Instance. Sun Patent Trust sought to halt the disclosure of highly confidential information (HCI) to designated employees of Vivo, arguing that continued access would render its appeal pointless. The Court ultimately rejected this request, finding that the appeal would not become devoid of purpose and that the claimant failed to establish a risk of irreparable harm.
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.