Executive Summary
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Mannheim rejected Centripetal Limited's request for a final written brief in an ongoing infringement action. The claimant sought to introduce a substantially new functionality reading late in the proceedings. The Panel ruled that allowing such a late submission would violate procedural fairness and compromise the preparation time for the upcoming oral hearing, thereby maintaining the original rejection order.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The UPC panel confirmed the rejection of the claimant's motion for a further written brief, citing procedural fairness concerns. The court held that introducing substantially new infringement readings so late in proceedings would prejudice the defendants and disrupt the preparation timeline for oral hearings.
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
Edwards Lifesciences CorporationvsMeril Life Sciences Pvt Limited
This order addresses a procedural dispute regarding the costs associated with public access requests to court documents within UPC proceedings. The judge-rapporteur clarified that Article 69 UPCA, which governs cost allocation, is not applicable when parties are consulted by the judge-rapporteur under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. This ruling sets a clear boundary on who can seek reimbursement of legal costs in these specific procedural contexts, emphasizing that public access requests do not automatically trigger standard cost recovery mechanisms.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KGvsVibrantz GmbH
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG brought a mixed action before the UPC, including an infringement claim and a counterclaim for revocation against Vibrantz GmbH concerning EP 3 215 288. The court ultimately dismissed the infringement lawsuit and rejected all other pending applications. While the core dispute involved technical aspects of metal sintering preparations used in electronics, the decision also touched upon complex procedural issues regarding the binding effect of national invalidity judgments across various jurisdictions.
Polidoro S.p.a.vsBekaert Combustion Technology B.V.
In a procedural order concerning EP 2 037 175, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim granted Polidoro S.p.a. an extension of one week to file its reply brief and defense against Bekaert's counterclaim for revocation. The court acknowledged that delays in providing unredacted documents necessitated this procedural adjustment. This decision underscores the UPC's commitment to ensuring fair procedure, even when dealing with complex litigation involving both infringement claims and revocation counterclaims.
Syntorr LPvsArthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V.
In a significant ruling concerning procedural fairness in the UPC, the Court of Appeal addressed an application for security for costs. The court held that if a claimant holds comprehensive litigation insurance with an anti-avoidance endorsement (AAE) from an EU insurer, this coverage is sufficient to mitigate the risk of non-recoverable legal costs. This decision provides substantial relief to SMEs and claimants by establishing that financial solvency can be demonstrated through robust insurance rather than solely relying on bank guarantees.
UnspecifiedvsEssetre Holding spa
In this UPC revocation action, the Court addressed arguments regarding novelty and inventive step for a machine used in machining walls. The core legal discussion centered on claim interpretation, specifically how terms like 'working surface' should be understood within the patent's context. Ultimately, the court rejected the attempt to revoke the patent, maintaining it after incorporating amendments proposed by the defendant.
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.