UPC CFI 729/2024
Dec 3, 2024·EP3821580 · METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR EFFICIENT NETWORK PROTECTION
- Case details
- StatusCase ClosedActionCounterclaim for revocationCategoryCounterclaim for revocation
- Parties
- Claimants
- Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbHOperating co.
Representatives- Klaus Haft-Hoyng Rokh Monegier
Respondents- Centripetal LimitedOperating co.
Representatives- Ralph Nack-Noerr Partnerschaftsgesellschaft mbB
- Division
- Mannheim LD
- Technology
- Electrical engineeringDigital communication
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Dec 5, 2025
- EPO Opposition
- Keysight Technologies, Inc.Admissible2025-02-28
| Patent revoked | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 37% (34/91) | 124 |
| Mannheim LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Peter Tochtermann | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Marije Knijff | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Pascal Attali | — | Locked |
At the UPC: Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH (7 cases)·Centripetal Limited (22 cases)
This dispute contains 6 other proceedings
UPC CoA 126/2026·UPC CoA 14/2026·UPC APP 15688/2025·UPC APP 33206/2025·UPC APP 34668/2025 and 1 more
5 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent
UPC CoA 891/2025·UPC CoA 805/2025·UPC CFI 792/2025·UPC CFI 414/2024·UPC CoA 239/2025
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: Mannheim LD·2024
- 2025-12-05Infringement 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
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Receipt | 2026-01-05 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-01-05 | Not public |
| Application document Claimant | 2026-01-05 | Not public |
| Exhibit document Claimant | 2026-01-05 | Not public |
| Case closed | 2025-12-05 | Not public |
| Order | 2025-12-05 | Not public |
| Order | 2025-12-05 | Public |
| Decision | 2025-12-05 | Not public |
| Decision | 2025-12-05 | Public |
| Interim procedure closed | 2025-10-02 | Not public |