UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 414/2024

Jul 22, 2024·EP3821580 · METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR EFFICIENT NETWORK PROTECTION

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (No infringement)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Mannheim LD
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Digital communication
Language
English
First decided
Dec 5, 2025
EPO Opposition
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Infringement foundMedian days to first decision
All UPC53% (62/117)124
Mannheim LDLockedLocked
Judge Peter TochtermannLockedLocked
Judge Marije KnijffLockedLocked
Judge Sender TobiasLockedLocked
Judge Pascal AttaliLockedLocked

At the UPC: Centripetal Limited (22 cases)·Keysight Technologies, Inc. (9 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 8 other proceedings

UPC CoA 126/2026·UPC CoA 14/2026·UPC CFI 26/2026·UPC CoA 805/2025·UPC APP 15688/2025 and 3 more

4 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

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

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Mannheim LD·2024

Decisions
  • 2025-12-05
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (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 ActionPublic

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (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
Documents
Show all 357 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Other Documents2026-03-02Not public
Other Documents2026-03-02Not public
Receipt2026-01-05Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-05Not public
Application document Respondent2026-01-05Not public
Application document Respondent2026-01-05Not public
Application document Respondent2026-01-05Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2026-01-05Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2026-01-05Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2026-01-05Not public
Plain-English summary

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.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

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

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 171 RoP

    Note: 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

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

    Note: 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

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 114 RoP; R. 245 RoP; Art. 81 UPCA

    Note: 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.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

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

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 171 RoP

    Reason: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 114 RoP

    Reason: 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.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
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

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

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.