- Case details
- Status—ActionAppealCategoryMain appeal
- Parties
- Claimants
- Centripetal LimitedOperating co.
Representatives- Niclas Gajeck-Noerr Partnerschaftsgesellschaft mbB
Respondents- Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Operating co.
- Division
- Court of Appeal
- Judges
- —
- Technology
- Electrical engineeringDigital communication
- Language
- —
- First decided
- May 28, 2025
- EPO Opposition
- Keysight Technologies, Inc.Admissible2025-02-28
| Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|
| All UPC | 124 |
At the UPC: Centripetal Limited (22 cases)·Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (12 cases)
This dispute contains 6 other proceedings
UPC CFI 809/2026·UPC CFI 1402/2025·UPC CoA 891/2025·UPC CFI 792/2025·UPC CFI 636/2025 and 1 more
5 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent
UPC CoA 126/2026·UPC CoA 14/2026·UPC CoA 805/2025·UPC CFI 729/2024·UPC CFI 414/2024
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: Court of Appeal·2025
- 2025-05-28Appeal RoP220.1Public
Summary: The Court of Appeal revoked the Munich Local Division's order refusing Centripetal's ex parte application to preserve evidence at Palo Alto's Munich branch office and referred the case back to the Local Division. The Court held that the standard of proof for preservation of evidence is lower than for a full infringement action; mere plausibility of infringement suffices. The Court found that Centripetal's digital evidence preservation request was plausible and that the risk of evidence destruction was established. The order was limited in scope to monitoring Palo Alto's Network Security Solution and digital documentation at the Munich premises.
Show the legal issues (5)
- Standard of proof for preservation of evidence (Art. 60(1) UPCA)
- Plausibility of infringement
- Risk of evidence destruction
- Ex parte evidence preservation order
- Referral back to CFI
- Final%20order%20Centripetal%20-%20Palo%20Alto%20signed.pdf2025-05-28EN