UPC CoA, 13 May 2026: Discretionary review granted: fundamental questions on panel review or appeal of judge rapporteur orders regarding access under R. 262 RoP

IPPT20260513, UPC CoA, Huawei v Quinn Emanuel
Application for discretionary review granted (R. 220.3 RoP; R. 333 RoP, R. 262 RoP) because the question of whether the rapporteur’s decision regarding access under R. 262 RoP is subject to review by the panel pursuant to R 333 RoP, and whether and how an appeal may be lodged against that decision, raises fundamental legal issues which must be clarified by the Court of Appeal. 

No determination on admissibility of appeal (R. 220.2 RoP) Neither this order nor the reference in this order to R. 220.2 RoP can be regarded as an acknowledgement by the Court of Appeal that an appeal under R. 220.2 RoP is admissible in the present case. This issue is the subject of the appeal proceedings concerning the contested decision.

Appeal from:

IPPT20260326, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Quinn Emanuel v Huawei
Inadmissible application panel review (R. 333.1 RoP) of a decision of the judge-rapporteur under R. 262.1(b) RoP as R. 262.1(b) RoP does not provide for any transfer of competence from the panel to the judge-rapporteur, and therefore no review of the (delegated) decision of the judge-rapporteur by the panel is warranted. 

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. This interest exists independently of whether the Court could be scrutinised through access to the files.