UPC_CFI_1234/2025

Decisions and documents (2)

• 2026-03-26procedural

  Defendants:

  Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.; MediaTek Germany GmbH; MediaTek, Inc.

  granted

  1 An application under R. 333.1 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP) is inadmissible against a decision of the judge-rapporteur under Rule 262.1(b) RoP (para. 24). 2 If the panel is not competent for proceedings such as those under R. 262.1(b) RoP, the decision of the judge-rapporteur designated as competent cannot be reviewed by the panel by way of this special remedy on the basis of an application under R. 333.1 RoP (para. 26). 3 For the training and advisory interest of a law firm justifying third-party access to the file under R. 262.1(b) RoP, an abstract assessment is required. Therefore, it is generally sufficient that the requested access can objectively serve to satisfy the interest in obtaining information for training and advisory purposes. In this respect, an applicant does not need to specifically set out and justify which information it seeks to obtain and why it is significant or necessary for its training and advisory purposes (paras. 34/35). 4 Likewise, it is not relevant whether the written pleadings to be inspected directly provide information on how the Court handled the case. For the purposes of training and advisory interests, it is sufficient if the written pleadings indirectly provide information on the handling of cases or on the Court’s case law (para. 36).

  🔒 Unlock Official PDF
• 2026-03-26procedural

  Antragsgegnerinnen:

  Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.; MediaTek Germany GmbH; MediaTek, Inc.

  Application RoP262.1 (b). Document: 20260326 Entscheidung final 1234-25_EN.pdf. Case page: https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/183054

  🔒 Unlock Official PDF