Short Summary
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP 3 821 580. The court dismissed the Claimant's (Centripetal Limited) request under Rule 36 RoP for a further written pleading, holding that the front-loaded procedure under the Rules of Procedure does not permit the introduction of new infringement readings at this stage of the proceedings.
Detailed Summary
This Procedural Order, issued on 1 August 2025 by the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court (Case No. UPC_CFI_414/2024), concerns European Patent No. EP 3 821 580. The Claimant, Centripetal Limited (based in Galway, Ireland), had filed a request dated 25 July 2025 seeking permission for a further written pleading. The Defendants, Keysight Technologies, Inc. (USA) and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH (Germany), opposed the request. The order was issued by the legally qualified judge Prof. Dr. Tochtermann, acting as presiding judge and judge-rapporteur, after hearing the Defendants.
The court dismissed the Claimant's request for several reasons. First, the introduction of a new infringement reading would necessitate a further brief from the Defendants for reasons of procedural fairness. Given the summer holiday season, a time limit for such a brief could not be set before early September, and considering the vacations of the panel members and other oral hearings scheduled before the LD Mannheim in September, there would not be sufficient time to appropriately prepare the case for the oral hearing scheduled for 9/10 October 2025.
Second, the court emphasized that the Defendants' arguments in their rejoinder were merely a reaction to the new infringement reading already presented in the Claimant's Reply. Third, the court held that the Claimant's rights were not unduly impaired by limiting the scope of arguments to those contained in the briefs foreseen by the Rules of Procedure (RoP). The court noted that the Claimant could file a new infringement action if needed. The RoP impose a front-loaded procedure on the court and parties for good reason; further written pleadings should only be admitted in scenarios where the case as initially defined by the Claimant had not yet been sufficiently prepared for the oral hearing by the briefs for specific reasons, not as a tool to introduce new infringement readings as the case proceeds.
Finally, the court took into consideration that the 'click here' functionality attacked in the envisaged brief had been known to the Claimant from ITC proceedings since 2023, as the Defendants submitted and proved by filing records of that hearing. Furthermore, the Claimant could have realized the Defendants' further AI Stack functionality since its launch in March 2025. The order formally dismissed the Claimant's request of 25 July 2025 for a further written pleading.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Mannheim (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Centripetal Limited vs Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KGvsALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
Procedural order of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning the protection of trade secrets and confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure. The court classified certain financial information submitted by the defendant as confidential and restricted access to a limited number of persons on the plaintiff's side. The plaintiff raised no objections to the classification, and the order was issued by mutual agreement of the parties.
Moderna EntitiesvsGenevant Sciences GmbH & Arbutus Biopharma Corporation
This order concerns an application by the Moderna claimants under Rule 9.3(a) of the Rules of Procedure to extend the deadline for filing their Reply to the defence and Statement of Defence in the Counterclaim for Revocation. The Court partly rejected the application, granting a limited extension until 24 September 2025 rather than the requested 4 October 2025, taking into account the delayed access to unredacted confidential information due to the R.262A confidentiality proceedings.
KIPA AB - Request for Access to Pleadings and Evidence (Edwards Lifesciences CorporationvsMeril Lifesciences PVT Limited et al.)
An applicant (identified as KIPA AB) requested access to all written pleadings and evidence in proceedings concerning EP 2 628 464 B1, a patent owned by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. Both the Claimant and Defendants opposed the request, arguing it lacked specificity and a credible legitimate interest. The Court of First Instance rejected the request, holding that the protection of the integrity of the ongoing proceedings outweighed the applicant's interest in accessing the materials, while granting leave to appeal.
Dolby International ABvsRoku, Inc.
This case concerns a review application by Roku, Inc. regarding an ex parte order granting Dolby International AB an Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction (AASI) and Anti-Anti-Enforcement Injunction (AAEI) before the Local Chamber Munich. The court declared the application for interim measures moot and the proceedings terminated, but held that Roku bore the costs because a prior cease-and-desist letter was unnecessary given Roku had already initiated US proceedings seeking Anti-Suit and Anti-Enforcement Injunctions against Dolby.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.vsAndreas Rentmeister e.K. and Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns the service of a preliminary injunction order dated 19 December 2025 on Defendant 2, Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd., a Chinese-based company. The Court ordered that publication of the preliminary injunction order on the Court's website, along with notification via email to Defendant 2's Amazon seller profile address, constitutes good service pursuant to Rule 275.2 RoP, with service deemed effective as of 2 February 2026.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.