Huawei Technologies v MediaTek (UPC_CFI_247/2025)
Decision date:
11 September 2025
Osborne Clarke summary
- In these ongoing proceedings, MediaTek sought additional confidentiality protection under Rule 262A RoP for parts of their statement of defence that they claimed contained highly sensitive technical information and know-how, which was subject to internal confidentiality measures. MediaTek asked to limit access on Huawei's side to three named legal representatives.
- Huawei opposed, arguing that the redactions were too broad. They claimed that the submissions were largely “negative facts” that wouldn't enable any conclusions to be drawn about MediaTek's implementations, and maintained that a witness name is not confidential. Alternatively, they proposed access for more named individuals (nine, then six, then three), many already in the previously established FRAND Confidentiality Club or in a confidentiality club in national parallel proceedings before the Regional Court of Munich I.
- The Mannheim LD held that the technical content in the technical part of the statement of defence was protectable, stating that the balancing of interests to be carried out under Rule 262A.5 RoP favoured granting protection. Access was granted for six representatives from the existing FRAND Confidentiality Club or the club implemented in the parallel proceedings. The court noted that a further expansion of the confidentiality club for technical material should be avoided as it would be impractical to establish a differently structured confidentiality club for each round of pleadings.
- The court did, however, reject MediaTek's request for protection of a witness' name. It held that concrete submissions setting out the specific need for protection (for example, a poaching risk) are required, which were not given here.
Issue
Curious about how UPC decisions might impact your business? Have questions about the UPC?
Reach out to our patents team for expert guidance and support.