2026-06-29 - CoA - MediaTek et al. v. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan - UPC-COA-0000053/2026

The Court of Appeal resolved the previously unsettled question of how a judge-rapporteur's decision on a R. 262.1(b) RoP file-access request may be challenged. It held — against the Munich Local Division — that such decisions are subject to panel review under R. 333 RoP and that the panel's decision is then appealable under R. 220.2 and 220.3 RoP, not under R. 220.1 RoP. The rapporteur's R. 262.1(b) decision is a 'procedural decision' within the broad concept of R. 333.1 RoP because it concerns management of the panel's case file, and only the panel — not the rapporteur — may grant leave to appeal; the panel-review system may be bypassed only in exceptional cases, which R. 262.1(b) is not. Huawei had therefore taken the correct path, so its appeal was admissible. On the merits, however, the appeal failed: once the underlying infringement proceedings have concluded, the balance of interests generally favours granting access; a law firm qualifies as a 'member of the public' with a legitimate training and advisory interest, no document-specific benefit need be shown, the 'fishing expedition' objection was unsubstantiated, confidentiality was adequately handled by accepted redactions, and an NDA condition was unnecessary because the proceedings had ended.