Short Summary
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action over European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd requested that certain information in its complaint be classified as confidential and that all participants in the proceedings be obligated to maintain confidentiality, including after the proceedings conclude. The court granted the request, classifying the identified information as confidential and ordering that it be kept confidential by all persons involved in the proceedings.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung) was issued on 13.05.2025 by Presiding Judge Ulrike Voß of Panel 2 of the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in case UPC_CFI_248/2025.
The plaintiff, Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, P.R. China), filed an infringement action against the defendants, MediaTek, Inc. (Hsinchu, Taiwan) and MediaTek Germany GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany), concerning European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1. The proceedings are conducted in German.
By application dated 24.03.2025, Huawei requested that information grey-highlighted in the complaint, as well as related attachments, figures, and overviews marked 'Streng vertraulich' (strictly confidential), 'vertraulich' (confidential), 'CONFIDENTIAL,' or 'geheimhaltungsbedürftig' (requiring confidentiality), be classified as confidential pursuant to Art. 58 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (EPGÜ) in conjunction with Rule 262.2 and Rule 262A.1 of the Rules of Procedure (VerfO). The plaintiff attached a tabular overview identifying the relevant passages. Additionally, Huawei requested that confidentiality be ordered against all persons (jedermann), including after the conclusion of the proceedings, and that the defendants not disclose the confidential information to third parties or use it outside the proceedings (Request b).
The representative of Defendant 2 (MediaTek Germany GmbH) was granted the right to be heard under Rule 264 VerfO.
The court found the application admissible and meritorious. The court reasoned that under Art. 58 EPGÜ in conjunction with Rule 262A VerfO, the court can restrict access to certain information contained in pleadings or limit the taking and use of evidence to protect confidential information. Rule 262.2 VerfO concerns restrictions on public access to the register. The court left open the question of whether Rule 262A VerfO directly applies to obligate participants to maintain confidentiality vis-à-vis third parties or the public, or whether such an obligation follows directly from a Rule 262.2 VerfO application, but found that such an obligation would follow by analogous application of these provisions. The court identified a gap in the regulations that was unintentional (planwidrig), noting that the EPGÜ and VerfO, in line with Art. 9 of the Trade Secrets Directive, provide for effective protection of trade secrets. The comparable interest of a party in preventing third parties or the public from being informed about confidential information introduced in proceedings supported this conclusion.
The court found that the grey-highlighted information in the complaint and the marked attachments, figures, and overviews listed in the table of Request a constitute confidential information. Both parties agreed that these are trade secrets of both parties and are subject to confidentiality agreements between them. Upon indication by Defendant 2, Huawei clarified that the list of confidential attachments on page 16 of the complaint and the information in paragraph 224 of the complaint are also part of the confidentiality application.
The court ordered that the confidential information must be kept confidential by all persons who gain knowledge of it through their participation in the proceedings (as parties, representatives, witnesses, experts, court staff, or otherwise) and must not be used or disclosed outside these court proceedings, unless they gained knowledge of it outside the proceedings. The obligation to maintain confidentiality continues after the conclusion of the proceedings, unless the disputed information becomes otherwise known or readily accessible to persons who typically have access to such information, or the court has denied the confidentiality requirement by a final decision or order.
The court did not impose access restrictions on the defendants' side, as Huawei did not request this and it was not deemed necessary. The Registry was instructed to grant Defendant 2 access to the unredacted version of the complaint and the relevant attachments.
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, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Fujifilm CorporationvsKodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
This is a Court of Appeal decision concerning EP 3 476 616 (DE and UK designations) relating to lithographic/printing plates. Fujifilm had sued Kodak for patent infringement before the Mannheim Local Division, and Kodak counterclaimed for revocation. The Court of Appeal reversed the first instance's revocation of the German designation, finding the patent valid and infringed by Kodak's Sonora plates, and granted extensive remedies including injunction, recall, destruction, and damages. For the UK designation, the Court of Appeal dismissed Fujifilm's appeal and held that the condition for Kodak's counterclaim for revocation was not fulfilled.
Bentley Motors LimitedvsNetwork Systems Technologies LLC
Bentley Motors Limited filed a revocation action against Network Systems Technologies LLC concerning European patent EP 1 552 399 before the Central Division (Paris seat) of the Court of First Instance. The applicant subsequently applied to withdraw the revocation action, stating it had the respondent's consent and that no party would seek a cost decision. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered that all prior orders in the proceedings be of no effect.
Volkswagen AGvsNetwork System Technologies LLC.
Volkswagen AG appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied its application for security for costs in main infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 875 683. Alongside its appeal, Volkswagen requested expedition of the appeal proceedings and shortening of deadlines pursuant to R.225(e) and R.9.3(b) RoP. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding it too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Huawei Technologies Co. LtdvsNetgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc. and Netgear International Limited
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies against three Netgear entities concerning European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1, which relates to Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) standard technology. The defendants raised non-infringement, exhaustion, and FRAND/competition law defenses, along with three counterclaims for revocation. The order addresses procedural matters including deadlines for submissions, appointment of a court expert for translations, and scheduling of the oral hearing.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. LimitedvsTesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, Tesla Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg in a patent infringement action concerning a Rule 190.1 RoP application by the Defendants (Tesla entities) seeking to compel the Plaintiff (Avago) to produce Board of Directors resolutions related to the authorization of the patent transfer and power of attorney. The Court granted the application in part, ordering production of three of the four requested documents relating to the authorization chain and the transfer of the patent from the transferor corporation, but denied the request concerning the recipient entity (Avago General IP).
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.