UPC CoA 0000926/2025 and UPC CoA 0000927/2025 – Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v TP-Link Systems Inc. et al.
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Date
- Outcome
- Huawei's appeal granted suspensive effect, temporarily denying TP-Link access to files.
- Sector
- Other
- Decision Type
- Procedural Order
Expert Commentary
Full Decision Text
1 Procedural order of the Appeal Court of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings for inspection of files under Rule 262.1(b) PPRO issued on December 17, 2025 APPELLANT (RESPONDENT BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE) Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., Shenzhen, P.R. China (hereinafter: "Huawei") represented by Christian Harmsen, attorney-at-law, and other attorneys-at-law of the law firm Bird & Bird LLP APPELLEE (APPLICANTS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE) 1. TP-Link Systems Inc., CA, United States of America 2. TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, Düsseldorf, Germany 3. TP-Link Enterprises France SARL, Vélizy-Villacoublay, France 4. TP-LINK Enterprises Netherlands B.V., ME Nieuwegein, The Netherlands 5. TP-Link Italia S.R.L., Cernusco sul Naviglio MI, Italy 6. TP-LINK Enterprises Nordic AB, Solna, Sweden 7. Lianzhou International Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, P.R. China (hereinafter collectively referred to as "TP-Link") represented by attorney Klaus Haft and other attorneys from the law firm HOYNG ROKH Monegier RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE 1. NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Munich, Germany 2. Netgear Inc., San Jose, CA, United States of America 3. Netgear International Limited, Cork, Ireland (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Netgear") represented by attorney Henning Meskes and other attorneys from the law firm Freshfields PartG mbB File number: UPC CoA 0000926/2025 and UPC CoA 0000927/2025 2 PATENT IN CONTENTION EP 3 678 321 DECIDING JUDGES Panel 1a with the participation of Klaus Grabinski, President of the Court of Appeal Peter Blok, legally qualified judge Emmanuel Gougé, legally qualified judge and rapporteur LANGUAGE OF THE CASE German CONTESTED ORDERS OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE □ Orders of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Munich Local Chamber, dated November 28, 2025 □ Case number of the Court of First Instance: UPC CFI 1247/2025 UPC CFI 1248/2025 UPC CFI 168/2024 UPC CFI 152/2024 ACT 18917/2024 ACT 16294/2024 CC 20512/2024 FACTS 1. TP-Link applied to the Court of First Instance, Munich Local Chamber (hereinafter: LK Munich), for access to certain documents in particular in infringement proceedings ACT 18917/2024 UPC CFI 168/2024; CC 20512/2024 UPC CFI 168/2024 and ACT 16294/2024 UPC CFI 152/2024 the parties to the proceedings (Huawei as plaintiff or [only in the first-mentioned infringement proceedings] counterclaimant for nullity and Netgear as defendant or [only in the first-mentioned infringement proceedings] counterclaimant for annulment), after personal data has been redacted in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of November 7, 2023, and with the proviso that, insofar as the documents contain confidential information and the parties have submitted redacted versions accordingly, TP-Link is only granted access to the redacted versions of the documents (see in detail: Rules of Procedure [VA] of the Munich Regional Court dated November 28, 2025, pp. 2-3). 2. TP-Link essentially argued that it had a legitimate interest in inspecting the files because Huawei had brought an action against it before the Munich Regional Court for infringement of the same patent (EP 3 678 321) that Huawei had invoked in the aforementioned proceedings against Netgear. 3. Netgear requested that the request for access to the files be rejected or, alternatively, that TP-Link be granted access only to the fully redacted versions of the relevant pleadings and annexes in which the respective confidential information had been redacted (see in detail: VA of the Munich Regional Court dated November 28, 2025, p. 5). 4. Huawei requested that the request for access to files be rejected in its entirety, or alternatively that the request for access to files be rejected insofar as it went beyond the specifically designated documents in a version described (in the request) (see in detail: VA of the Munich Regional Court of November 28, 2025, pp. 12-13). 3 5. In support of its case, Huawei essentially argued that the requests were vague and that TP-Link had no legitimate interest in access, as the confidentiality interests of the parties to the original dispute outweighed any such interest. 6. In an order dated November 28, 2025, the Munich Regional Court, through the reporting judge, ruled that TP-Link should be given access to certain pleadings from both of the above-mentioned proceedings, whereby access is limited to the fully redacted versions available in accordance with the confidentiality orders issued in the proceedings or the orders submitted pursuant to Rule 262.2 VerfO. 7. The Munich Regional Court further ordered that the orders be enforced 20 days after service, rejected TP-Link's motions in all other respects, and allowed the appeal. 8. Huawei appealed against these orders in a written submission dated December 12, 2025, requesting that (i) to amend the procedural order of the Munich Regional Court and reject the request for access to files, alternatively to reject the request for access to files insofar as it goes beyond the documents specified in the request in a redacted version described in detail in the request, (ii) to order that the appeal have suspensive effect, alternatively, in the event that a decision by the court of appeal on the application is not possible by December 18, 2025, to order the suspensive effect due to extreme urgency by the permanent judge. REASONS FOR THE PROCEDURAL ORDER 9. According to Article 74(1) EPGÜ, the appeal shall not have suspensive effect unless the Court of Appeal decides otherwise upon a reasoned request by one of the parties. The Court of Appeal shall decide on such a request without delay, Rule 223.2 VerfO. 10. A reason for ordering suspensive effect under Art. 74(1) EPC may exist if the court of first instance has granted a request to make written submissions and evidence available in accordance with Rule 262.1(b) RPC and it appears that this order will become enforceable before the appeal court has decided on the respondent's appeal (see EPG-BerG, 6.11.2023 – UPC CoA 407/2023 App 584588/2023 – Ocado/Autostore, para. 6). 11. Such a case also exists here. The Munich Regional Court has partially granted TP-Link's request for access to files and at the same time ordered that access to the files be granted to this extent after 20 days, i.e. on December 18, 2025. If the Court of Appeal does not order the appeal to have suspensive effect, it is unnecessary to decide on Huawei's main appeal request to amend the Munich Regional Court's procedural order and to reject the request for access to files, insofar as it has been granted, in whole or in part, since access to the files would then already have been granted in fact. 12. The order on the suspensive effect is issued without prior hearing of the applicant TP-Link due to the short time remaining before the expiry of the implementation period ordered by the Munich Regional Court. However, TP-Link will be given the opportunity to comment on Huawei's application for suspensive effect within the time limit for responding to the appeal in accordance with Rule 235.2 VerfO. If necessary, the Court of Appeal will review the present order on suspensive effect. 4 PROCEDURAL ORDER I. It is ordered that Huawei's appeals shall have suspensive effect for the duration of the appeal proceedings and that TP-Link shall not be given access to the pleadings listed in the Munich Local Chamber's order of November 28, 2025, under 1. II. The Court of Appeal reserves the right to revoke this order after hearing TP-Link within the appeal response period pursuant to Rule 235.2 VerfO. This order was issued on December 17, 2025. MARTIN Grabinski Digitally signed by KLAUS STEFAN MARTIN Grabinski Date: 12/17/2025 08:11:37 Klaus Grabinski, President of the Court of Appeals Peter Digitally signed by Peter Hendrik Blok HendrikBlok Date: 2025.12.17 08:56:59 Peter Blok, legally qualified judge EMMANUEL, LUCIEN, RENÉ GOUGÉ Digitally signed by EMMANUEL, LUCIEN, RENÉ GOUGÉ Date: 12/17/2025 09:02:11 +01 Emmanuel Gougé, legally qualified judge and rapporteur KLAUS STEFAN
Key Holdings
- The Appeal Court ordered that Huawei's appeals shall have suspensive effect for the duration of the appeal proceedings.
- Consequently, TP-Link is temporarily denied access to the pleadings listed in the Munich Local Chamber's order of November 28, 2025.
- A reason for ordering suspensive effect under Art. 74(1) UPCA exists if a first instance order granting access to files under Rule 262.1(b) RPC would become enforceable before the appeal court decides on the appeal.
- The order on suspensive effect was issued without prior hearing of the applicant (TP-Link) due to urgency, but TP-Link will be given an opportunity to comment, and the Court of Appeal reserves the right to review the order.
Tags
- Access to File
- Appeal
- Confidentiality
- Suspensive Effect
- Unified Patent Court