UPC_CFI_414/2024

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.

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.