Centripetal v Keysight Technologies (CFI, 14 May 2025)

Date	14 May 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Mannheim (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_15688/2025 · ORD_16635/2025
Parties	Keysight Technologies, Inc., Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH

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 procedural order of 14 May 2025 (ORD_16635/2025), the judge rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division postponed, until the oral hearing at the latest, the decision on Centripetal’s conditional application for leave to amend its case (Rule 263) in its action against Keysight Technologies for infringement of EP 3 821 580 (UPC_CFI_414/2024), together with the preliminary question whether leave is needed at all.

Question

Do submissions in the reply directed at the « Threat Simulator » software and the « ThreatARMOR » component amount to an amendment of the case requiring leave and, if so, should leave be granted?

Decision

The order noted that the decision requires a weighing of all the circumstances: whether the new embodiments share the claimed features of those already attacked, whether they would fall within the operative part of a decision on the merits, whether they are a separate attack, and how far they were triggered by the defendants’ prior use defence. Those matters can only be assessed after claim construction and fact-finding (point 1). The postponement does not unduly prejudice Keysight, whose rejoinder deadline had already been extended, and the oral hearing on 9 and 10 October 2025 leaves room for a further moderate extension (point 2). No further written exchange on the point is foreseen after the rejoinder.

Key points for practice

Whether an extension of the attacked embodiments is admissible may be decided at the oral hearing, once the claims have been construed.
Practical point: if leave is refused, the Division reserves the option of dealing with the new embodiments in separate proceedings or applying the consequences provided for in Rules 103, 104 and 334.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 103, 104, 114, 263 and 334

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: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantKeysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH3 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantKeysight Technologies, Inc.4 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

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Le juge rapporteur reporte au plus tard à l'audience la décision sur la nécessité et l'octroi de l'autorisation de modifier les prétentions demandée par Centripetal.
Appeal: No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
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

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 (CFI, UPC_CFI_414/2024, 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)	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.