UPC CoA 53/2026

At the UPC: Huawei Group (62 cases)·Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP (0 cases)

• 2026-06-29
  Application RoP262.1 (b)Public

  Summary: The Court of Appeal dismissed Huawei's appeal against the first instance decision granting Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan access to pleadings filed in concluded infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_248/2025) under R. 262.1(b) RoP. The court confirmed that Quinn Emanuel had a legitimate interest in accessing the documents for professional education and advisory purposes, and rejected Huawei's objections based on alleged misuse and confidentiality, as adequate redactions had already been applied.

  Show the legal issues (5)

  • Public access to court documents under R. 262.1(b) RoP
  • Reviewability of rapporteur decisions by the panel under R. 333 RoP
  • Admissibility of appeal against panel review decision under R. 220.2 and 220.3 RoP
  • Legitimate interest of a law firm in accessing pleadings for professional education
  • Confidentiality and redaction of documents in concluded proceedings
• 2026-05-13
  Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)Public

  Summary: The Court of Appeal granted Huawei's request for a discretionary review (R. 220.3 RoP) of the Munich Local Division's decision on a third-party access-to-file request under R. 262.1(b) RoP, finding that fundamental legal questions arise concerning the reviewability of rapporteur decisions under R. 333 RoP. The appeal is admitted and referred to a panel; Huawei is ordered to pay the fee difference of €2,700 between the discretionary review and appeal fees.

  Show the legal issues (6)

  • Admissibility of discretionary review (R. 220.3 RoP) of a first-instance decision on third-party access to file (R. 262.1(b) RoP)
  • Reviewability of rapporteur decisions under R. 333.1 RoP by the panel
  • Applicable appeal route (R. 220.2 ff. RoP) against decisions on R. 262.1(b) access-to-file requests
  • Criteria for 'educational interest' vs. mere investigatory interest under R. 262.1(b) RoP
  • Burden of proof for a 'reasoned request' under R. 262.1(b) RoP
  • Whether access to file may be conditioned on a confidentiality obligation