Centripetal Limited v. Keysight Technologies, Inc.

App_33206/2025

In this procedural order, the Local Division Mannheim dismissed Centripetal Limited's request for a further written pleading. The court stressed the importance of adhering to the Rules of Procedure (RoP), stating that pleadings should not be used to introduce new infringement readings late in the proceedings. This decision reinforces the UPC's commitment to efficient case management and procedural fairness, particularly regarding timely preparation for oral hearings.

Jurisdiction
European UPC
Court
Mannheim (DE) Local Division
Case Number
App_33206/2025
Judge(s)
and judge

What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi

The UPC emphasized that written pleadings are not a tool to introduce new infringement readings during proceedings. The scope of arguments must be defined in the initial briefs, ensuring the case is sufficiently prepared for the oral hearing as required by the Rules of Procedure (RoP).

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. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentUPC_CFI_936/2025

InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc.vsAmazon.com, Inc.

In a significant ruling concerning SEP licensing and anti-suit injunctions, the UPC Local Division Mannheim confirmed an order preventing Amazon from pursuing contractual claims in UK courts. The applicants (InterDigital) successfully defended their attempt to enforce measures designed to ensure that patent infringement proceedings before the UPC are not undermined by external legal actions. This decision reinforces the UPC's jurisdiction and its ability to manage complex cross-border disputes involving standard-setting organizations.

patentApp_39127/2024

AGFA NVvsGucci Sweden AB, Gucci France SAS, Guccio Gucci S.p.A., Marbella Pellami S.p.A., Gucci Logistica S.p.A., GG Luxury Goods GmbH, Gucci Belgium SA, G Commerce Europe S.p.A. , GG FRANCE SERVICES SAS

In a complex infringement case involving AGFA NV and the Gucci group, the UPC Local Division issued a critical procedural order granting confidentiality protection to sensitive business information. The defendants successfully argued that their internal supply chain data, sales figures, and quality control metrics constituted trade secrets under EU law. This ruling is significant as it establishes clear boundaries for evidence disclosure in high-stakes luxury goods litigation within the UPC framework.

patentUPC-COA-0000887/2025

Washtower IP B.V.vsIndustriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs GmbH

This UPC Court of Appeal decision is a purely procedural order granting an extension of time to the Appellants (defendants from the CFI proceedings). The Appellants requested more time to prepare their grounds of appeal due to professional constraints, including mandatory attendance at an EPO hearing. The Court granted a three-working-day extension, emphasizing the principles of due process while ensuring the Respondents' interests were secured by the enforceability of the original order.

patentApp_23569/2025

Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H.vsYunex GmbH

In this UPC procedural order, the court allowed Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd. to join the ongoing infringement action as an assisting party (Streithilfe). This move is significant as it allows a third party to participate in supporting or challenging the claims between Swarco Futurit and Yunex GmbH. The decision primarily addresses procedural matters, including requests for cost security deposits, keeping the core patent dispute active but with expanded participation.

patentApp_19228/2025

NJOY Netherlands B.V.vsJuul Labs International Inc.

In a revocation action concerning EP 3 504 990, the UPC Court of Appeal granted a stay of proceedings at the request of Juul Labs. This decision was based on the accelerated timeline of parallel opposition appeal proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal. The ruling highlights the practical mechanism for coordinating litigation between the UPC and national/EPO bodies when decisions are expected rapidly.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call