Centripetal Limited v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc.

1

Local Division Mannheim

UPC_CFI_636/2025

of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court

issued on 25 July 2025

App_32933/2025

Applicant

Centripetal Limited

Galway Technology Centre, Mervue Business Park, 7XPF+6C Galway,

Ireland

represented by:

Dr Ralph Nack, Dr Niclas Gajeck, and Ernesto Garzón Villada (lawyers),

Noerr PartG mbB, Brienner Str. 28, 80333 Munich

and

Dr Frank Meyer-Wildhagen, Dr Martin Meggle-Freund, and

Matthias Block (European Patent Attorneys),

MFG Patentanwälte PartG mbB, Amalienstraße 62, 80799 Munich

electronic address for service:

ralph.nack@noerr.com

Defendant

Palo Alto Networks, Inc.

3000 Tannery Way, Santa Clara, 95054 CA, USA, with its branch office in Rosenheimer Straße 143c, 81671

Munich, Germany

represented by:

Dr Henrik Lehment, Hogan Lovells International LLP,

Dreischeibenhaus 1 - 40211 - Düsseldorf - DE

electronic address for service:

upc-hub@hoganlovells.com

2

PATENT AT ISSUE: EP 3 281 580

PANEL/DIVISION: Local Division in Mannheim

DECIDING JUDGE: Prof. Dr. Peter Tochtermann acting as presiding judge and judge-rapporteur

LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: English

SUBJECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS: Application for Penalty Order

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

1. Applicant motioned for a saisie order before the CFI aiming at seizure and real-time

monitoring of a full setup of the Form of Infringement offered by Defendant. In its

application, Applicant applied to have the Defendant set up such a system to be monitored

at its premises within a period of one month. The CFI LD Mannheim rejected the application

for various reasons by order of 3 March 2025, amongst them a failure to submit sufficient

facts why the Applicant believed to get hold of the network solution it wished to analyse

with the help of an expert at the premises described in the application. Upon appeal the

CoA (order of 28 May 2025, APL_13242/2025, UPC_CoA_239/2025) accepted the

application in a modified version allowing the Applicant to carry out monitoring of

Defendant’s system at the premises contained in the application. The CFI thereafter issued

the respective order upon referral back (order of 3 June 2025, amended by order of 9 July

2025 upon further application).

2. On 11 July 2025 Claimant executed the order and tried to monitor the Form of

Infringement. However, it turned out that at the premises – a co-working space – there

was only one sales person, which did not have any access to the layers of the system

Applicant wanted to monitor. Counsel of Defendant, which had been called to come to the

premises in accordance with the CFI order, which allowed the execution only after

Defendant had been informed by the Applicant about its right to seek assistance of a legal

representative of its choice to attend said inspection and allow Defendant a maximum of

two hours to ensure the presence of such representative, refused to have the Defendant

set up access rights from the US headquarters so as to grant the person at the Munich

office the rights just for the purpose of the inspection so as to be able to provide the access

sought by Applicant. The Applicant’s outside counsel searched the entire office, but did not

find any Next Generation Firewall, cloud computing servers, or any technical

documentation. Applicant's counsel (not the bailiff or the expert) requested from the

present staff member and the Defendant's counsel to somehow create a proprietary

access to allegedly existing technical documentation stored outside the address named in

the operating part of the Saisie Order and not accessible for the personnel present in this

office. Neither the present staff member nor the Defendant's counsel were at the time able

to create such proprietary access.

3. With the request lying before the court, Applicant requests as follows:

3

4. Applicant argues that drastic penalties had to be imposed as Defendant blatantly rejected

c