UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 660/2024

Nov 7, 2024·EP3652914 · CYBERANALYSIS WORKFLOW ACCELERATION

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 19, 2025
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 Tobias SenderLockedLocked
Judge Kai HärmandLockedLocked
Judge Steven KitchenLockedLocked

At the UPC: Centripetal Limited (22 cases)·Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (12 cases)

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

This dispute contains 3 other proceedings

UPC CoA 31/2026·UPC CFI 134/2025·UPC APP 29553/2025

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Mannheim LD·2024

Decisions
  • 2025-12-19
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: 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).

    Show the legal issues (4)
    • Lack of inventive step
    • Claim amendment under R.30.1 RoP
    • Counterclaim for revocation
    • Methods and systems for cyberanalysis workflow
Documents
Show all 144 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Other Documents2026-08-03Not public
Receipt2026-07-31Not public
Cover sheet2026-07-31Not public
Application document Claimant2026-07-31Not public
Hearing recording reference document2026-04-13Not public
Receipt2026-01-19Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-19Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2026-01-19Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2026-01-19Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2026-01-19Not public
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

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.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Claims of EP 3 652 914 (including unconditionally amended main request and all auxiliary requests) lack inventive step over prior art

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC; problem-solution approach; inventive step

    Note: 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

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC; obviousness

    Note: 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.

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

  • Unconditionally amended main request and auxiliary requests 1–12 should be maintained

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC

    Reason: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC

    Reason: 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.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
All claim amendments evaluated for inventive step; no 'safe harbour' in amendment merely by adding features already disclosed in prior artGeneralisation of a prior-art concept from one technical sub-domain to a related one does not involve an inventive stepRevocation of patent defeats infringement action regardless of infringement merits

Browse other cases on this principle.

Prior art relied on
References cited and the role they played.
  • HLCC17Obviousness combination
Claim construction notes

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.