UPC CFI 660/2024
7. Nov. 2024·EP3652914 · CYBERANALYSIS WORKFLOW ACCELERATION
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase Closed (Keine Verletzung)VerfahrensartVerletzungKategorieHauptverletzungsklage
- Parteien
- Kläger
- Centripetal LimitedUnternehmen
Vertreter- Niclas Gajeck-Noerr Partnerschaftsgesellschaft mbB
- Armin Kühne-Noerr Partnerschaftsgesellschaft mbB
- Division
- Mannheim LD
- Technologie
- Electrical engineeringDigital communication
- Sprache
- English
- Erste Entscheidung
- 19. Dez. 2025
| Verletzung festgestellt | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Mannheim LD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Peter Tochtermann | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Tobias Sender | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Kai Härmand | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Steven Kitchen | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Centripetal Limited (22 Verfahren)·Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (12 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 3 weitere Verfahren
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
Weitere Verfahren: Mannheim LD·2024
- 2025-12-19Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Court revoked European patent EP 3 652 914 B1 in its entirety in the territories of France and Germany on the basis of the counterclaim for revocation filed by Palo Alto Networks. The claims (including the unconditionally amended main request and all auxiliary requests) were found to lack inventive step in light of the prior art. As a consequence, the infringement action was dismissed. Centripetal was ordered to bear the costs of the litigation. The value in dispute was set at EUR 2 million (EUR 1 million each for the infringement action and counterclaim).
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
- Lack of inventive step
- Claim amendment under R.30.1 RoP
- Counterclaim for revocation
- Methods and systems for cyberanalysis workflow
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Other Documents | 2026-08-03 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2026-07-31 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-07-31 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application document Claimant | 2026-07-31 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Hearing recording reference document | 2026-04-13 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2026-01-19 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-01-19 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Exhibit document Respondent | 2026-01-19 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Exhibit document Respondent | 2026-01-19 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Exhibit document Respondent | 2026-01-19 | Nicht öffentlich |
Centripetal Limited sued Palo Alto Networks for infringement of EP 3 652 914 B1 (cyberanalysis workflow acceleration using machine-learning-based event log triage) for the German and French parts. Palo Alto Networks counterclaimed for revocation; the Mannheim Local Division revoked the patent in full for both territories, finding all 12 claim amendment groups and the unconditionally amended main request lacked inventive step over prior art (principally HLCC17 on n-gram/polygram analysis of domain names), and accordingly dismissed the infringement action.
Claims of EP 3 652 914 (including unconditionally amended main request and all auxiliary requests) lack inventive step over prior art
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPC; problem-solution approach; inventive stepHinweis: Mannheim Local Division accepted Palo Alto Networks' revocation counterclaim, finding all claim versions (including 12 amendment groups) lacked an inventive step over the prior art, in particular HLCC17 and related references.
N-gram/polygram probability distribution concept from prior art (HLCC17) renders claim features relating to reportability likelihood determination obvious
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPC; obviousnessHinweis: Court held that applying n-gram vectors to domain names generally renders features requiring such analysis for the leading label of the effective 2nd-level domain of a FQDN obvious; the concept was not limited to file paths.
Unconditionally amended main request and auxiliary requests 1–12 should be maintained
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPCBegründung: Each claim amendment was found to lack inventive step over the prior art (primarily HLCC17); the combination of all features in amendment 12 similarly provided no inventive step.
HLCC17 only discloses n-gram vectors applied to URL filepaths, not domain names generally
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPCBegründung: Court found HLCC17 discloses the n-gram concept for domain names generally, not limited to filepaths; even if limited to filepaths, applying it to other URL components including second-level domains would not involve an inventive step.
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.
- HLCC17Erfindungsmüh-Kombination
The court construed claim features relating to 'reportability likelihood' determination and the use of polygram (n-gram) probability distributions applied to the leading label of the effective second-level domain of a fully qualified domain name. Claim amendment 10's feature CA10-1.4.2.2.1.2 does not preclude further entropy values being used, but the second-level domain feature was rendered obvious by HLCC17's general teaching on domain name analysis.