Centripetal v Keysight Technologies (CFI, 1 August 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By a procedural order of 1 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_414/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division dismissed Centripetal’s request of 25 July 2025 under Rule 36 for leave to file a further written pleading in its infringement action against Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland (EP 3 821 580). The order confirms that Rule 36 cannot be used to introduce a new infringement reading as the case proceeds.

Question

May a claimant, as the oral hearing approaches, obtain leave to file a further pleading to develop a new infringement reading?

Decision

No. The defendants’ rejoinder merely reacted to the new infringement reading put forward in the reply. Admitting a further pleading would require a time limit for a response that could not be set before early September, jeopardising preparation for the hearing of 9 and 10 October 2025 and procedural fairness. Further pleadings are admitted only where, for specific reasons, the briefs have not sufficiently prepared the case for the hearing. They are not a tool for introducing new infringement readings. Centripetal also knew of the functionalities at issue (ITC proceedings since 2023, launch of the AI Stack in March 2025) and remains free to bring a new infringement action.

Key points for practice

• A new infringement reading must be set out in the ordinary written pleadings. Failing that, the route is a fresh action, not a further pleading under Rule 36.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rule 36

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.