Centripetal v Keysight Technologies (CoA, 1 September 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 1 September 2025 (UPC_CoA_805/2025, APL_35593/2025), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal denied Centripetal’s request for discretionary review of the Mannheim Local Division’s order of 20 August 2025, which, without granting leave to appeal, had refused a further exchange of written pleadings in the infringement action against Keysight on EP 3 821 580. Centripetal wished to address software released during the proceedings. The order confirms the Court of Appeal’s restraint towards refusals of further pleadings.

Question

Does a refusal under Rule 36 to allow a further exchange of pleadings on a product released during the proceedings warrant discretionary review under Rule 220.3?

Decision

No. The request is admissible but denied (paragraph 6). Rule 36 leaves the matter to the judge-rapporteur’s discretion and the impugned order is not manifestly wrong (paragraphs 7 and 8): the written procedure was advanced, the oral hearing was set for 9 October 2025, and Centripetal had waited about four months after the software’s release and five weeks after the rejoinder (paragraph 9). No final adverse effect is shown, since Centripetal may bring separate proceedings against new products and res judicata does not extend to unpleaded facts (paragraph 10). No fundamental question of law or need for consistent application of the Rules is established (paragraph 11).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a product released during the proceedings must be raised promptly, failing that, the patentee keeps the option of a separate action.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Preamble, recital 5

Rules of Procedure

Preamble, point 7, Rules 36, 220.3 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.