Centripetal v Palo Alto Networks (CFI, UPC_CFI_636/2025, 2 October 2025, doc. 2)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 2 October 2025 (UPC_CFI_636/2025), the Mannheim Local Division, on Palo Alto Networks’ request for review under Rule 197.3, revoked the order to preserve evidence granted without hearing the defendant on 3 June 2025 in favour of Centripetal (EP 3 281 580), save for the confidentiality measures, and rejected the saisie application. The premises searched housed only a sales unit with no technical access to the data sought. The order shows that an inter partes review can undo a saisie even where it was granted after referral by the Court of Appeal, once new facts show it would not have been ordered.

Facts and procedure

The Mannheim Local Division had rejected the original application on 3 March 2025. On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed a modified application on 28 May 2025 (UPC_CoA_239/2025) and referred the case back. The saisie order was issued on 3 June 2025 and amended on 9 July 2025. When it was executed on 11 July 2025 at a co-working space in Munich, only a sales employee was present, with no access to the technical layers of the system and no technical documentation on site. Elevated access rights could only be granted from the US headquarters, which the defendant’s counsel refused (paragraphs 1 to 14). Palo Alto Networks requested a review. Centripetal asked in the alternative that its German subsidiary be added.

The applicable law

The request is admissible under Rule 197.3 (paragraph 16). Review safeguards the right to be heard (Art. 60(6) UPCA, Art. 7(1) of Directive 2004/48), the division asks whether the order could have been issued had the new facts been known at the outset (paragraphs 17 to 19). Under Rule 243.2 it is bound by the Court of Appeal’s decision only on the points actually decided, and review remains available for facts the Court of Appeal could not consider (paragraph 30).

Question

Must an order to preserve evidence granted without hearing the defendant be revoked where review shows that the premises searched did not, in the ordinary course of business, give access to the evidence sought?

Decision

Yes. A failure to find evidence during execution does not by itself justify revocation (paragraph 22). But the exhibits relied on by the applicant showed no more than a sales and marketing unit with no technical access, and the order would not have issued on those facts (paragraph 23). Data accessible from a location count only if that access is part of the ordinary business carried on there (paragraph 24), and staff who do not normally work with the system need not be given access rights. Such evidence would have to be sought under the applicable international conventions (paragraph 25). The order was therefore revoked (paragraph 26), and the same reasoning ruled out extending it to the German subsidiary (paragraph 27). The division left the other objections open (duty of candour, wrong entity, urgency, validity) (paragraph 28), while describing as manifestly wrong the view that the duty of candour under Rule 192.3 is a one-off obligation (paragraph 29). The confidentiality measures remain, the applicant bears the costs and the security stays in place until the cost proceedings are concluded (paragraphs 31 and 32).

Key points for practice

• The place named in a saisie must be one where access to the evidence forms part of the normal business. A sales office from which data could technically be viewed is not enough.
• The defendant need not create access rights for employees who do not use the system. Evidence held abroad falls under the international assistance conventions.
• A Court of Appeal decision authorising the saisie does not prevent a review based on new facts revealed by its execution.
• Practical point: before seeking a saisie of data, the applicant should establish that technical staff or documentation are actually present at the premises, and should keep to its duty of candour through to the review.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 60(6), 60(8) and 73(2)(a)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 192.3, 197.1, 197.3, 197.4, 198.1, 220.1(c), 224.2(b) and 243.2

Directive 2004/48/EC

Art. 7(1)

Case law cited

Centripetal v Palo Alto Networks, Court of Appeal, 28 May 2025 (UPC_CoA_239/2025), Maguin v Tiru, Court of Appeal, 15 July 2025, relied on by the defendant

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.