Centripetal v Keysight (CFI, UPC_CFI_414/2024, 5 December 2025)

Date	5 December 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Mannheim (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Infringement Action
Case number(s)	UPC_CFI_414/2024
Registry reference	UPC_CFI_414/2024
Parties	Centripetal Limited v. Keysight Technologies, Inc. et. al.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 5 December 2025 (UPC_CFI_414/2024), the Mannheim Local Division rejected Centripetal’s request to reopen the oral hearing in its infringement action on EP 3 821 580 against Keysight Technologies, together with its auxiliary request for an expert to examine the source code of the attacked embodiment. The defendants’ additional costs caused by the request were ordered to be borne by Centripetal. The order confirms that Rule 114 RoP does not allow new infringement theories to be put forward once the hearing has closed.

Question

Can a claimant obtain the reopening of the hearing, and production of source code, by relying after the close of the hearing on an expert statement about how the attacked product works?

Decision

Reopening is reserved for exceptional cases, where a specific issue that emerged at the hearing requires in-depth investigation that cannot be completed in the time allotted. It is not a means of introducing new infringement allegations (paragraph 5). Read together with Rule 245 RoP, which confines rehearing to serious procedural defects and criminal offences, and in light of Alexion v Amgen, a broad reading of Rule 114 RoP would be inconsistent (paragraph 6). Centripetal had not explained why it consulted its expert only after the written, interim and oral procedures had closed, although the source code issue had been clear since the written procedure (paragraph 7), and its new infringement alternatives were late (paragraph 10).

Key points for practice

Technical evidence supporting infringement, including access to source code, must be marshalled during the written procedure. Reopening the hearing is not a second chance (paragraphs 5 to 7 and 10).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Art. 81
Rules of Procedure: Rules 114 and 245
Other provisions: Code of Conduct for Representatives, Sections 2.2 and 2.4.2
Case law cited: Alexion v Amgen, Court of Appeal, 19 June 2025

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.

Going further

Lexicon: Patent infringement action.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).

Source and translations

Official source: Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language: not recorded
Translation available: no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked: not recorded

Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

UPC_CFI_414/2024 official number

Follow this case

Parties

claimantCentripetal Limited11 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantKeysight Technologies, Inc. et. al2 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

5 December 2025 Centripetal v Keysight (CFI, UPC_CFI_414/2024, 5 December 2025) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_414/2024
28 September 2026 Keysight Technologies v Centripetal (CoA, 28 September 2026) Appeal · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision
Keysight est restituée dans son droit de faire appel du sort de sa demande reconventionnelle conditionnelle non jugée. La demande de Centripetal d'allonger son délai de réponse est rejetée.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La division locale de Mannheim rejette la demande de Centripetal de rouvrir l'audience et de faire examiner le code source du produit de Keysight, et met à sa charge les frais supplémentaires des défenderesses.
Appeal: An appeal is documented in the corpus (see above).
Instance: First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

EP 3 821 580 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Network System Technologies v Qualcomm (CFI, UPC_CFI_64/2024, 11 March 2026) cites this decision
Network System v Qualcomm (CFI, UPC_CFI_63/2024, 11 March 2026) cites this decision
Network System Technologies v Qualcomm (CFI, UPC_CFI_451/2024, 11 March 2026) cites this decision
Emboline v AorticLab (CFI, 13 January 2026) cites this decision
Centripetal v Keysight (CFI, UPC_CFI_414/2025, 5 December 2025) cites this decision

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 3 821 580` Methods and systems for efficient network protection recorded proprietor: Centripetal Ltd	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 10 other decision(s): Centripetal v Palo Alto Networks (CoA, 4 February 2026) · Centripetal v Keysight (CFI, UPC_CFI_414/2025, 5 December 2025) · Centripetal v Keysight Technologies (CFI, 5 September 2025) · Centripetal v Keysight Technologies (CoA, 1 September 2025) · Centripetal v Keysight Technologies (CFI, 20 August 2025) · Centripetal v Keysight Technologies (CFI, 1 August 2025) · Centripetal v Palo Alto Networks (CFI, 11 July 2025) · CENTRIPETAL v PALO ALTO NETWORKS (CoA, 28 May 2025)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet · European Patent Register existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically) mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis

The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.