Centripetal v Keysight Technologies (CFI, 5 September 2025)

Date	5 September 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Mannheim (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_34668/2025 · ORD_34697/2025
Parties	Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH, Keysight Technologies, Inc.

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 an order of 5 September 2025 (UPC_CFI_414/2024 and UPC_CFI_729/2024, App_34668/2025), the Mannheim Local Division rejected Keysight Technologies’ application to stay Centripetal’s infringement action on European patent EP 3 821 580, and the counterclaim for revocation, pending the outcome of the EPO opposition. The opposition division’s preliminary opinion finding added matter was not enough where the case was ready to be decided on both validity and infringement.

Question

Should the UPC proceedings be stayed pending the EPO’s decision on the opposition, where the opposition division has issued a preliminary opinion unfavourable to the patent?

Decision

No. The case was ready for a full hearing, including validity, on 9 and 10 October 2025, whereas the EPO’s reasoned decision might come much later, the opposition hearing being scheduled for 27 November 2025. The effect of the preliminary opinion on the patent and on infringement was uncertain, as the patent might be maintained in amended form. Proceeding served the interests of justice: the UPC decision, expected at the latest about six weeks after the October hearing, would likely precede the EPO hearing.

Key points for practice

Practical point: an unfavourable preliminary opinion of the opposition division is not enough to obtain a stay where the UPC is about to rule on validity on a counterclaim.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: No provision cited in the order.
Case law cited: No UPC decision is cited.

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): La demande de suspension de l'action en contrefaçon et de la demande reconventionnelle en nullité dans l'attente de la décision de l'OEB est rejetée.
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 (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) · CENTRIPETAL v PALO ALTO NETWORKS (CoA, 28 May 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.