Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, UPC Court of Appeal, 29 June 2026, Case no. UPC-COA-53/2026
The Unified Patent Court (“UPC”) Court of Appeal (“CoA”) recently issued two Orders dismissing an appeal brought by Huawei against the grant of access to pleadings to the law firm Quinn Emanuel in the proceedings between Huawei and MediaTek (UPC_CFI_254/2025).
The Orders follow those previously issued in both Boehringer v Zentiva (UPC-COA-09/2026) and Ballinno B.V. v UEFA & Kinexon (UPC_CFI_151/2024), reaffirming that the principles established in Ocado v Autostore (ORD\_19369/2024) are to be applied when considering applications for access to pleadings, and confirming that lawyer professional development and understanding how the UPC operates may be legitimate grounds for access to documents.
Background
Quinn Emanuel filed a request for access to pleadings in Huawei v MediaTek before the Munich Local Division (“LD”) pursuant to R.262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure (“RoP”) on 20 October 2025. On 27 January 2026, the Judge Rapporteur (“JR”) granted Quinn Emanuel access to the pleadings requested, subject to the redaction of confidential information.
On 2 February 2026, Huawei requested that the JR’s decision be reviewed by the panel pursuant to R.333.1 RoP. On 26 February 2026, the JR amended the Order, suspended Quinn Emanuel’s access to the requested pleadings pending the conclusion of the review procedure pursuant to R.335 RoP.
The Munich LD issued a decision (the “Contested Decision”) on 26 March 2026 upholding the JR’s decision on the basis that Huawei’s request for review was inadmissible and unfounded. Huawei appealed against the Contested Decision, but the appeal was dismissed.
On 13 April 2026, Huawei submitted a request for a discretionary review of the Contested Decision pursuant to R.220.3 RoP. Huawei also submitted an alternative request that access be granted to Quinn Emanuel subject to an obligation to keep the materials confidential.
Decision and Reasoning
The CoA found the appeal to be admissible, but unsuccessful on the merits.
Admissibility of the appeal
The CoA considered the appeal process noting that the ambiguity in the RoP by not providing a clear answer to what kind of appeal decisions can be made under R.262.1(b) RoP arises from the hybrid nature of the access to pleadings procedure.
The Munich LD dismissed Huawei’s appeal because it found that the application for review under R.333.1 RoP was inadmissible on the basis that R.262.1(b) RoP expressly provides that the JR is to decide on the application for access to the pleadings and that no powers are delegated from the panel to the JR.
However, the CoA decided that the appeal is admissible but unsuccessful on the merits.
The CoA noted that as the RoP does not contain an express provision permitting an appeal against the JR’s decision under R.220.1(a) RoP, it does not consider that the avenue should be available under R.262.1(b) RoP. R.220.2 RoP applies in principle as it its more appropriate in terms of time limits, court fees and has the advantage of being consistent with the appeal rules applicable in the event of any confidentiality orders. Although, the CoA noted that even this provision does not fit perfectly with decisions on an application for access to the pleadings.
The CoA noted that, unless otherwise specified, an appeal against a JR’s decision may only be lodged if the decision has first been reviewed by the panel in accordance with R.333.1 RoP. This follows from the fact that, in principle, it is only possible to lodge an application for review of discretion if leave to appeal against an order of one of the panels of the Court of First Instance, in this case the Munich LD, is refused.
The CoA is of the view that decisions of the JR pursuant to R.262.1(b) RoP are covered by the system of review of the panel under R.333 RoP and are subject to appeal provisions of R.220.2 RoP and R220.3 RoP. Huawei therefore followed the correct procedure.
Merits of the appeal: access to documents
Having determined that the appeal was admissible, the CoA then considered the merits. It considered the principles established in Ocado v Autostore and determined that the Munich LD had been correct to uphold the JR’s decision, and that access to the pleadings should be granted to the extent ordered. Huawei’s request for a discretionary review was rejected, as was its alternative request to grant access subject to a confidentiality obligation.
Where an access request is made, the interests of public access must be balanced against the general interests and the need to protect confidential information and personal data under Article 45 of the UPC Agreement.
The UPC Register is public under Article 10 of the UPC Agreement, subject to certain conditions, and R.262.1(b) RoP provides that pleadings and evidence lodged with the Court shall be available to the public upon a reasoned request addressed to the Registry, subject to appropriate redaction of confidential information and personal data.
The CoA confirmed that once proceedings have concluded, the balancing of interests will generally favour granting access to pleadings.
The CoA also confirmed that a law firm is a “member of the public” for the purposes of R.262.1(b) RoP, and that gaining a better understanding of how parties and the UPC conduct proceedings, with a view to improving professional advice, constitutes a legitimate interest sufficient to support an access request. In this case, the CoA approved the Munich LD’s finding that Quinn Emanuel’s training and advisory interests were sufficient interests to grant access to the documents requested. This outweighed Huawei’s objections, and in particular the CoA dismissed Huawei’s allegations that the request was a “pretext for spying”.
The CoA noted that during the initial proceedings, Huawei and MediaTek had already had certain parts of the documents to which access was to be granted redacted. Huawei did not specify or justify which other parts of the documents contained confidential information and the UPC rejected its alternative request on this basis. Once proceedings have concluded, there is no requirement for a confidentiality undertaking, as the protection of the integrity of the proceedings is no longer required.
Implications
This decision provides practitioners with comfort that requests for access to pleadings by third-party law firms will generally be granted where they are made in order to obtain insights into the court’s treatment of the litigation, or to pursue any other legitimate interest of the member of the public.
