UPC CFI 414/2024

Defendants' products do not incorporate the claim requirement of routing packets to a CAS (Cyber Analysis System) based on threat metadata

Hinweis: Defendants denied in precise terms at oral hearing that any functionality for threat-metadata-based CAS routing exists in the source code; Centripetal provided no adequate substantiation or proof in response.

Conditional counterclaim for revocation is procedurally permissible under UPC Rules of Procedure

Hinweis: Court confirmed that a conditional counterclaim dependent on an infringement finding is procedurally allowable; since infringement was not found, the counterclaim was not decided.

R. 114 RoP does not permit reopening of oral hearing to introduce new infringement allegations after closure

Hinweis: Court held R. 114 is reserved for situations identified during the hearing itself requiring additional testimony or experimental evidence; it is not available to introduce new infringement reads post-hearing.

Defendants' AppStack, SecureStack-SSL and Threat Simulator products directly infringe claim 16 and indirectly infringe claim 1

Begründung: Centripetal failed to substantiate with sufficient evidence or proof (R. 171 RoP) that the products contain the claim-required functionality for threat-metadata-based CAS routing after defendants clearly denied it at oral hearing.

Oral hearing should be reopened to allow expert review of defendants' source code, and defendants should produce source code

Begründung: Centripetal could have pursued source code access during the written procedure; defendants had contested the infringement read since their SoD; reaching out to a US proceedings expert only after oral hearing closure was too late; R. 114 is not a tool for post-hearing supplementation.