Centripetal v Palo Alto Networks (CFI, 11 July 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 3 June 2025 (UPC_CFI_636/2025), made without hearing the defendant after referral back by the Court of Appeal, Judge Tochtermann (Mannheim Local Division) granted Centripetal a saisie targeting Palo Alto Networks’ network security solution at its Munich branch office. The judge rapporteur had rejected the application on 3 March 2025, on 28 May 2025 the Court of Appeal referred the case back, leaving the first instance to issue the orders.

The practical interest lies in the terms. Bound by the Court of Appeal on the points it decided, the judge used his discretion on the points it did not address: the defendant is given two hours to call in a lawyer before real-time monitoring of its system, and enforcement is conditional on security of EUR 100,000.

Facts and procedure

Centripetal, the registered proprietor of a European patent (EP 3 281 580 according to the order’s header, while the body also refers to EP 3 821 580), in force in Germany, France, Italy and the Netherlands among others following withdrawal of the opt-out, alleges that Palo Alto Networks’ next-generation firewall, with its Advanced Threat Prevention and App-ID Cloud Engine services, very probably infringes. It relies on an expert opinion filed as exhibit C2.

Its saisie application was rejected by the judge rapporteur on 3 March 2025. On appeal, the Court of Appeal referred the case back on 28 May 2025 (UPC_CoA_239/2025), entrusting the Local Division with issuing the orders, with Judge Tochtermann sitting as presiding judge and judge rapporteur.

The applicable law

The measure rests on Art. 60 UPCA and Rules 192 and 196 RoP. On referral back, the first instance is bound by the Court of Appeal’s decision on the points it decided (Rule 243.2), including the number of the applicant’s representatives allowed to attend. Under Rule 196.3 it retains the power to attach conditions, in particular as to whether immediate enforcement is proportionate and as to security where the measure is ordered without hearing the defendant (Rules 196.3(b) and 196.6).

Question

After referral back by the Court of Appeal, on what terms should a saisie concerning a live IT system be ordered without hearing the defendant?

Decision

The saisie is ordered for claims 1 and 16: inspection of the Munich branch, set-up and real-time monitoring by the expert of a firewall device connected to the defendant’s servers, copying of digital evidence and technical documentation, then an expert report within one month. The appointed expert may use two assistants. Four named representatives of the applicant (two lawyers, two patent attorneys) may attend, bound to secrecy towards their client. Its employees may not. The defendant must allow access and assist the monitoring, including by disclosing passwords, certificates and decryption keys.

Since the Court of Appeal said nothing on attendance on the defendant’s side, the judge considered that the defendant must be able to consult a lawyer to understand the scope of the order, read together with its reasons: set-up and monitoring may proceed only after it has been told of that right and given up to two hours, during which it may not alter the system, the other measures are immediately enforceable. The order takes effect only once security of EUR 100,000 is provided within three weeks of service, an amount held sufficient to cover costs and damage. Use of the results is limited to main proceedings against the defendant and its affiliates (Rule 196.2), and the measures are revoked if no action on the merits is brought within the Rule 198.1 time limits. The remainder of the application is rejected.

Key points for practice

• On referral back, the first instance is bound on the points the Court of Appeal decided but keeps its discretion on terms it did not address (Rules 243.2 and 196.3).
• A saisie of a live system may require active cooperation from the defendant, including handing over passwords and decryption keys.
• A short window to call in a lawyer may be granted before the most intrusive steps, while the others remain immediately enforceable.
• Practical point: the applicant must plan for the amount of security and the time allowed to provide it, on which the order’s effect depends.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 60 and 73(2)(a)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 192, 196, 197.3, 198.1, 220.1(c), 224.2(b) and 243.2

Case law cited

CENTRIPETAL v PALO ALTO NETWORKS, 28 May 2025, Court of Appeal

Related decisions

• CENTRIPETAL v PALO ALTO NETWORKS, 28 May 2025, Court of Appeal order referring the case back.
• Centripetal v Palo Alto Networks, 25 July 2025, order rejecting a penalty request for alleged non-compliance with the saisie.
• Centripetal v Palo Alto Networks, 2 October 2025, panel review upholding that refusal.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.