UPClytics
DEEN
AnmeldenTesten
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 414/2024

22. Juli 2024·EP3821580 · METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR EFFICIENT NETWORK PROTECTION

Folgen
Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Keine Verletzung)
Verfahrensart
Verletzung
Kategorie
Hauptverletzungsklage
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Beklagte
Vertreter
Division
Mannheim LD
Richter
Technologie
  • Electrical engineering
    Digital communication
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
5. Dez. 2025
EPA-Einspruch
Im Vergleich
Die Bilanz des Gerichts für diese Art von Verfahren, gezählt in erstinstanzlichen Entscheidungen. Eine Zahl in Klammern gibt an, auf wie vielen Entscheidungen eine Quote beruht.
Verletzung festgestelltMedian Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC53% (62/117)124
Mannheim LDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Peter TochtermannGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Marije KnijffGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Sender TobiasGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Pascal AttaliGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: Centripetal Limited (22 Verfahren)·Keysight Technologies, Inc. (9 Verfahren)

14 Tage kostenlos testenBereits Nutzer? Anmelden
Verwandte Verfahren
Alle Verfahren zu diesem Patent

Dieser Streit umfasst 8 weitere Verfahren

UPC CoA 126/2026·UPC CoA 14/2026·UPC CFI 26/2026·UPC CoA 805/2025·UPC APP 15688/2025 und 3 weitere

4 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent

UPC CoA 891/2025·UPC CFI 792/2025·UPC CFI 729/2024·UPC CoA 239/2025

Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.

Weitere Verfahren: Mannheim LD·2024

Entscheidungen
  • 2025-12-05
    Infringement ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: Decision of the Mannheim Local Division dated 5 December 2025 dismissing Centripetal Limited's infringement action against Keysight Technologies entities for infringement of EP 3 821 580 (methods and systems for network protection). Centripetal alleged direct infringement of claim 16 and indirect infringement of claim 1 in Germany, Italy, France and the Netherlands. The panel found that the defendants' products (AppStack, SecureStack-SSL, Threat Simulator) did not read on the claims as construed: defendants denied in the oral hearing that the source code contained functionality for threat-metadata-based routing to a CAS (a claim requirement), and Centripetal failed to substantiate its contrary position with sufficient evidence or proof under R. 171 RoP. The conditional counterclaim for revocation was not decided as the condition (infringement finding) was not met. Centripetal was ordered to bear all costs of the infringement proceedings.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (5)
    • Direct infringement of claim 16
    • Indirect infringement of claim 1
    • Claim construction for network protection methods (CAS, threat metadata, gateway)
    • Burden of proof for infringement under R. 171 RoP
    • Conditional counterclaim for revocation
  • 2025-12-05
    Infringement ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division dated 5 December 2025 rejecting Centripetal Limited's request to reopen the oral hearing and appoint an expert to review the source code of Keysight's products, filed on 24 November 2025 after the closure of the hearing. The court held that R. 114 RoP permits reopening only in exceptional cases identified during the oral hearing itself (e.g. for necessary additional testimony or experimental evidence emerging from the hearing) and is not available as a tool to introduce new infringement allegations after closure. Claimant's argument that defendants' counsel had made false statements about source code functionality was not sufficient to trigger R. 114 RoP. The request was rejected.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
    • Reopening of oral hearing under R. 114 RoP
    • Scope and conditions for reopening
    • New evidence after closure of hearing
    • Alleged false statements by counsel
Dokumente
Alle 357 Dokumente anzeigen
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Other Documents2026-03-02Nicht öffentlich
Other Documents2026-03-02Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-01-05Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-01-05Nicht öffentlich
Application document Respondent2026-01-05Nicht öffentlich
Application document Respondent2026-01-05Nicht öffentlich
Application document Respondent2026-01-05Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit document Respondent2026-01-05Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit document Respondent2026-01-05Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit document Respondent2026-01-05Nicht öffentlich
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Centripetal Limited sued Keysight Technologies at the Mannheim Local Division for direct infringement of claim 16 and indirect infringement of claim 1 of EP 3 821 580 B1 (network security threat-metadata routing system) in Germany, Italy, France and the Netherlands. The action was dismissed because, after defendants clearly denied at oral hearing that their products (AppStack, SecureStack-SSL, Threat Simulator) contained the claim-required threat-metadata-based CAS routing functionality, Centripetal failed to provide sufficient evidence to the contrary under R. 171 RoP. A post-hearing application to reopen proceedings for source code review was also dismissed.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

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

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 171 RoP

    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

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 263 RoP; R. 265 RoP; R. 30.1.c, 118.2.a RoP

    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

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 114 RoP; R. 245 RoP; Art. 81 UPCA

    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.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

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

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 171 RoP

    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

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 114 RoP

    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.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze
In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.
Indirect infringement of claim 1 and direct infringement of claim 16 assessed separatelyClaimant bears burden to substantiate and prove factual infringement allegations, particularly when defendants deny them precisely at oral hearing (R. 171 RoP)R. 114 RoP for post-hearing evidence is available only for issues identified during the hearing as requiring specific additional investigation; it is not a tool for new infringement allegationsConditional counterclaim for revocation is procedurally admissible where the condition is an internal procedural outcome (infringement finding)Front-loaded written procedure requires all infringement contentions to be raised during the written phaseR. 245 and Art. 81 UPCA: rehearing is an extraordinary remedy, not a supplement to the merits

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

The court construed claim 16 and claim 1 of EP 3 821 580 B1 (network protection method) as requiring a gateway generating threat metadata and routing packets to a CAS (Cyber Analysis System) based on the specific threat metadata associated with each packet. This 'threat-metadata-based CAS routing' feature was the determinative element; defendants denied its presence in any of their products.