CENTRIPETAL v PALO ALTO NETWORKS (CoA, 28 May 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 28 May 2025, the Court of Appeal revoked the order of 3 March 2025 by which the Mannheim Local Division had refused Centripetal’s application for preservation of evidence and inspection of premises of Palo Alto Networks under EP 3 821 580 (UPC_CoA_239/2025). It defined the admissible measures itself and referred the case back to the same first instance judge to decide on confidentiality and execution.

The order sets the standard of proof under Art. 60(1) UPCA: neither too high nor too low, lower than on the merits, with mere speculation remaining insufficient. It is of particular interest in software and network disputes, where evidence is encrypted and volatile.

Facts and procedure

On 19 February 2025 Centripetal applied to the Mannheim Local Division, mainly without prior notice to Palo Alto, for measures concerning Palo Alto’s network security solution (NGFW, ATP, ACE). The division found features 1.1 to 1.3 of claims 1 and 16 sufficiently shown but not features 1.4 to 1.6, and questioned the necessity of the measures and of inspecting the Munich branch. Centripetal appealed. By order of 22 April 2025 the Court of Appeal decided to proceed without hearing Palo Alto and without a public hearing, given the alleged risk of evidence being destroyed.

The applicable law

Art. 60(1) UPCA allows measures to preserve evidence where the applicant has presented reasonably available evidence to support the claim of infringement. The measures must balance the defendant’s right to respect for private life (Art. 7 of the Charter) against the applicant’s intellectual property right (Art. 17(2)) and be ordered only where necessary (paragraphs 19 to 21). Art. 60(5) allows a decision without hearing the other party where there is a demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed.

Question

Was the plausibility of infringement sufficiently shown, although some features were not proven, and which measures were necessary and proportionate without first hearing the defendant?

Decision

As the proceedings are summary, the standard of proof must be set neither too high nor too low. It is lower than on the merits, especially for aspects for which no evidence is reasonably available, but mere speculation is generally not enough (paragraphs 9 to 12). Features 1.4 to 1.6 were not proven, but Palo Alto’s public documentation and the expert opinion filed made infringement plausible. The remaining doubts did not justify refusal (paragraphs 13 to 15).

On necessity, Centripetal showed that only limited information was available, mainly because of encryption (paragraph 22). The Court allowed a detailed description of the relevant features, setup and real-time monitoring at the Munich branch to the extent the description requires, copies of digital evidence and documentation, and a limited inspection of the premises. It refused a general inspection, physical seizure of components (a description being equally effective), seizure of originals in favour of copies, and narrowed the expert questionnaire (paragraphs 25 to 28). Digital evidence being highly susceptible to alteration, encryption or deletion, proceeding without a hearing was justified (paragraphs 29 and 30). Confidentiality and execution were referred back to the first instance judge (paragraph 31).

Key points for practice

• A feature not demonstrated does not bar the measure if the evidence as a whole makes infringement plausible.
• Among equally effective measures, the least intrusive must be chosen: description rather than seizure, copies rather than originals.
• The volatility of digital evidence is enough to establish the risk of destruction that allows the court to proceed without hearing the defendant.
• Practical point: the application should explain why the missing elements are not reasonably available (encryption, lack of public documentation) and target the measures sought precisely.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 60(1), (5) and (8), 62(5) and 75

Rules of Procedure

Rules 192.2, 196, 197.1, 198, 199.2, 213 and 242

Directive 2004/48/EC

Art. 7 and recitals 20 and 32

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Arts 7 and 17(2)

Case law cited

10x Genomics v NanoString, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, Progress Maschinen & Automation v AWM, Court of Appeal, 23 July 2024, CJEU, 22 October 2002, Roquette Frères, C-94/00, CJEU, 18 October 2018, Bastei Lübbe, C-149/17, CJEU, 27 April 2023, Castorama, C-628/21, ECtHR, 30 March 1989, Chappell v United Kingdom, no 10461/83

Related decisions

• Mannheim Local Division, 3 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_142/2025), order of refusal revoked.

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.