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

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 5 December 2025, the Mannheim Local Division dismissed Centripetal’s infringement action against Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland (UPC_CFI_414/2024) based on EP 3 821 580 B1 on network protection. Faced with the defendants’ specific denials, the patentee had not sufficiently substantiated the presence of a « broker » dynamically selecting the appropriate analysis system. The counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_729/2024), conditional on a finding of infringement, was not decided. The decision confirms that, for network software, a targeted denial of a functionality requires the claimant to set out facts and offer evidence, and it endorses the practice of conditional counterclaims.

Facts and procedure

The patent, granted on 29 May 2024, protects a two-stage architecture (gateway and « broker ») designed to speed up threat analysis. Centripetal relied on claim 16 (direct infringement) and claim 1 (indirect infringement) for Germany, Italy, France and the Netherlands against Keysight’s « Network Visibility » range (paragraphs 1 and 4 to 6). Two products had been discontinued before grant (paragraph 6). The claimant’s further infringement reads under Rule 36 were refused by the judge-rapporteur on 1 August 2025, as confirmed by the panel on 20 August 2025 (paragraph 7). The defendants made their counterclaim conditional on a finding of infringement (paragraph 10). The hearing took place on 9 October 2025.

The applicable law

The burden of substantiation and proof is governed by Rule 171: a party relying on a fact must substantiate it and, if it is contested, offer evidence. Claim construction rests on the patent description. The division’s jurisdiction follows from Article 33(1)(a) UPCA (paragraph 20), the decision also refers to Rules 263 and 265 regarding the conditional counterclaim.

Question

Do Keysight’s products include a « broker » within feature 1.4, and must a counterclaim for revocation filed on condition of a finding of infringement be decided when that condition is not met?

Decision

The division construed the « broker » as a functional unit, which need not be physically separate, but must be able to read the threat metadata and deliberately select the appropriate cyber analysis system. A mere pre-configured switch forwarding packets to any system is not enough (paragraphs 24 to 29). The defendants specifically denied that their products contain such a broker and, questioned at the hearing, denied that their source code reads threat metadata and routes packets accordingly (paragraphs 30 and 31). Centripetal then had to set out contrary facts and offer evidence. Having failed to do so, its action was dismissed without the other non-infringement arguments being examined (paragraphs 19 and 32). As the condition of the counterclaim was not met, it was not decided. Such a condition, tied to the Court’s own assessment, is permissible by analogy with Rules 30.1(c) and 118.2(a), and the division left open whether Rule 263 or Rule 265 applies (paragraphs 33 to 35). Centripetal bears the costs of the infringement action.

Key points for practice

• The « broker » is defined by its function: an intelligent, dynamic selection based on threat metadata, not a mere pre-configured switch (paragraphs 24 to 29).
• A specific denial, including an oral statement at the hearing about the source code, shifts the burden of substantiation back to the claimant (paragraphs 31 and 32).
• A counterclaim for revocation may be made conditional on a finding of infringement. Even if treated as a withdrawal, the patentee has no legitimate interest in having its patent tested by the UPC while EPO proceedings are pending (paragraphs 34 and 35).
• Practical point: in software cases the claimant should plan from the statement of claim how it will prove the disputed internal operation (code review, expert evidence), since late infringement reads will be refused.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 33(1)(a) and (3)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 30.1(c), 36, 118.2(a), 171, 263 and 265

Related decisions

• Centripetal v Keysight, 5 December 2025, order of the same day refusing to reopen the hearing.
• Centripetal, 1 August 2025 and 20 August 2025, refusal of further infringement reads (Rules 36 and 333).

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.