On December 15, 2025, the Mannheim Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) issued a key procedural ruling (Case No.: UPC_CFI_481/2025) in the patent infringement dispute between Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Huawei”) and HMD Global Oy (licensee of the Nokia mobile phone brand, hereinafter referred to as “HMD”).
The ruling centered on the “scope of disclosure of patent licensing agreements.” HMD, the alleged infringer, applied to the court requesting Huawei to disclose all unredacted versions of its patent licensing agreements with all third parties.
HMD argued this was necessary to verify whether Huawei's licensing of standard-essential patents genuinely complied with the “Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory” (FRAND) principles, ensuring licensing offers were non-discriminatory and free from “double dipping.”
Huawei countered that it had fulfilled its obligation to “disclose comparable license agreements” during FRAND negotiations and firmly opposed HMD's request for disclosure of all agreements and completely unredacted versions.
Following deliberation, the court order issued by Reporting Judge Böttcher ruled as follows:
HMD's request denied: The court explicitly rejected HMD's demand for Huawei to provide all other third-party licensing agreements, ruling that such requests were “unfounded” at this stage of the proceedings. Huawei is only required to provide agreements directly relevant to the case, while retaining the right to redact non-critical terms appropriately.
Strict confidentiality measures: All submitted agreements and derived confidential information shall be handled under the court's prior confidentiality order. Access is restricted to two designated individuals within HMD, who must assume strict confidentiality obligations and refrain from disclosing such information to third parties, including other HMD employees.
The court emphasized that evidence submission must adhere to the principles of necessity, relevance, and proportionality, balancing the interests of both parties and procedural efficiency. As the case has yet to determine key issues such as “whether HMD is willing to obtain a license” or “whether Huawei's FRAND offer is reasonable,” there is insufficient evidence to establish that Huawei “deliberately concealed comparable license agreements to gain monopolistic advantages.” Therefore, HMD's additional requests lack necessity. Regarding the “double-dipping” dispute, the court ruled that HMD could first verify licensing terms with its suppliers, eliminating the need to directly demand Huawei submit all agreements.
Case Background:
In November 2022, Huawei filed multiple patent infringement lawsuits against HMD in the Munich Regional Court, Germany, alleging that HMD used Huawei's 4G/5G standard-essential patents in its Nokia-branded mobile phones. The involved patents include EP 3573392, EP 2528366, and EP 3407519.
In autumn 2023, the Munich Regional Court issued rulings on the EP 3573392 and EP 3407519 cases, finding that HMD's relevant products did not constitute infringement (Case Nos. 21 O 13091/22 and 21 O 14266/22);
In March 2025, the infringement lawsuit concerning EP 2528366 was also dismissed by the Munich Regional Court. The court held that HMD's mobile devices did not constitute indirect infringement and did not rule on the FRAND defense. Concurrently, the German Federal Patent Court issued a partial invalidation decision on this patent;
During the pendency of the above cases, HMD initiated infringement proceedings against Huawei at the Mannheim Regional Court in Germany based on its patent EP 2181559 (Case No. 2 O 6/23). The court dismissed the case, and HMD subsequently withdrew its appeal;
On June 16, 2025, Huawei filed a new patent infringement lawsuit with the Unified Patent Court (UPC), case number UPC_CFI_481/2025, which was assigned to the Mannheim Regional Division.
