Short Summary
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court ordered Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. to provide security for costs in the amount of €100,000 to MediaTek Germany GmbH within six weeks. The court found that, as Huawei is domiciled in China (outside the EU/EEA), enforcement of a cost decision would be significantly more difficult, justifying the requirement for security. The amount was set at half of the €200,000 statutory ceiling for reimbursable costs, since the other defendant, MediaTek, Inc., had not yet been served and was not participating in the proceedings.
Detailed Summary
This order concerns an application by MediaTek Germany GmbH (Defendant 2) for security for costs (Prozesskostensicherheit) under Article 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158.1 RoP in proceedings brought by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (Claimant) for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 567 731. MediaTek, Inc. (Defendant 1), based in Taiwan, was also named as a defendant but had not yet been successfully served. MediaTek Germany GmbH had filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent and sought security of €239,000 within six weeks, arguing that as Huawei is domiciled in China, enforcement of any cost decision would be de facto impossible or significantly more difficult.
Huawei opposed the application, arguing that it had appeared in numerous court proceedings and had always met its payment obligations, that it had accepted service at a German address in previous cases, and that MediaTek Germany GmbH was familiar with the German court system. Huawei further contended that the amount demanded was excessive, submitting that the ceiling for reimbursable representation costs was €200,000, that the costs of the revocation counterclaim should be included, and that this ceiling applied uniformly to the proceedings regardless of the number of defendants, meaning it should be divided among the defendants. Since MediaTek, Inc. was refusing to be represented by the same counsel as MediaTek Germany GmbH, Huawei argued that separate legal representation had to be assumed, so that at most half of the cost interest could fall on MediaTek Germany GmbH.
The Local Chamber Mannheim followed the reasoning of the Munich Local Chamber in the parallel case (UPC_CFI_248/2025) and the principles developed by the Court of Appeal in its orders in Ballinno/Kinexon (UPC_CoA_328/2024), NST/Audi (UPC_CoA_217/2024), Sodastream/Aarke (UPC_CoA_548/2024), and Chint/JingAo (UPC_CoA_431/2025). The court exercised its discretion to order security only with regard to the costs and expenses potentially reimbursable to MediaTek Germany GmbH.
On the substantive question, the court found that Huawei is a company domiciled in the People's Republic of China, a country outside the EU and EEA. While Union law guarantees the recognition and enforcement of judgments of Member State courts in other Member States, comparable guarantees may not exist for recognition and enforcement in non-EU/EEA states. The court noted that it had never successfully served a judicial document in China in any of its many proceedings, including SEP proceedings, and that enforcement against assets located there would be particularly difficult. No significant assets within the European Economic Area had been shown to exist, and the mere declared willingness to pay was insufficient to negate the defendant's interest in security.
On the amount, the court held that the ceilings for reimbursable costs, amounting to €200,000 in this case (including the costs of the revocation counterclaim), were an appropriate benchmark. However, a division of the ceiling was warranted because MediaTek, Inc. was not currently participating in the proceedings and the representatives of MediaTek Germany GmbH had not accepted the court's suggestion to also represent MediaTek, Inc. in exchange for an appropriate extension of deadlines. Since it was unclear to what extent MediaTek, Inc. would defend itself with its own revocation counterclaim, and since any division would have to be maintained even in the event of a separation of proceedings without giving rise to a subsequent claim for additional security, only half of the amount—€100,000—was to be allocated as security for MediaTek Germany GmbH.
The court ordered Huawei to provide security of €100,000 to MediaTek Germany GmbH, either by deposit into the designated UPC account for security deposits or by bank guarantee from an EU-licensed bank, within six weeks of service of the order. The court warned that a default decision under Rule 355 RoP could be issued if the security was not provided within the specified period.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Mannheim (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. vs MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Ona Patents SLvsApple Inc. and Others
Ona Patents SL filed a patent infringement action against several Apple entities regarding EP 2 263 098 B1, and the Apple defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. Prior to the closure of written proceedings, Ona Patents withdrew its infringement action, and the defendants agreed to the withdrawal. The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered a 40% reimbursement of court fees to the claimant and released the security for costs previously provided by the claimant.
Koninklijke Philips N.V.vsShenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. sought a preliminary injunction from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court against Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd. for infringement of EP 3 197 316 B1, which relates to an oral cleaning system with motivation feedback for electric toothbrushes. Despite having previously issued a cease and desist declaration, the respondent was found to be exhibiting the infringing 'Oclean' toothbrush models at IFA 2024 in Berlin. The court granted the preliminary measures, ordering the respondent to cease offering and distributing the infringing products, imposing penalties of up to 250,000 EUR per violation, and requiring handover of infringing products at the trade fair.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AGvsAWM s.r.l. and Schnell s.p.a.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG, proprietor of European Patent EP 2726230 B1 concerning a method and apparatus for continuously producing lattice girders, brought an infringement action against AWM s.r.l. and Schnell s.p.a. regarding their Girderflex and Girderflex VSX machines. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation, arguing that AWM had publicly disclosed the same technical solution through prior JIT machines before the patent's priority date. The Milan Local Division revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of novelty and inventive step, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered Progress to bear the costs.
Bostic, Inc.vsHenkel France, Henkel France Operations, Henkel technologies France, Henkel AG & Co KGaA, Henkel Nederland B.V, Henkel Italia S.r.l
Unified Patent Court decision.
UERAN Technology LLCvsXiaomi Corporation et al.
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 385 739. Defendant Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH requested a uniform deadline regime for all defendants and a two-week extension of the replication and duplication deadlines to account for Christmas and Easter holidays. The court granted the application, noting that service proofs for several defendants were still outstanding and reserving the right to subsequently shorten deadlines if representation of the remaining defendants is not promptly assumed.
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.