Short Summary
Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning a request by Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (Defendant) to extend the time period for filing its rejoinder in infringement proceedings, reply to the defence to the counterclaim for revocation, and defence against the application to amend European patent EP 3 652 914. The court granted a two-week extension until 14 July 2025, citing the outbreak of hostilities affecting the Defendant's key technical employee based in Israel, but shortened the extension to 9 July 2025 in the event the Defendant files an application for access restrictions under R. 262A RoP.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order, issued by Judge Böttcher (legally qualified judge-rapporteur) of the Mannheim Local Division on 27 June 2025, addresses a request by the Defendant, Palo Alto Networks, Inc., to extend the time period for filing three pleadings in the patent infringement action brought by Claimant Centripetal Ltd. concerning European patent EP 3 652 914. The Defendant sought a two-week extension (until 14 July 2025) for its rejoinder in the infringement proceedings, its reply to the defence to the counterclaim for revocation, and its defence against the application to amend the patent. The Claimant opposed the request.
The court began its reasoning by noting that the discretion under R. 9.3(a) RoP must be construed narrowly and exercised with caution, as extensions should only be granted under justified exceptional circumstances to preserve the swift proceedings regime established by the Rules of Procedure. While ordinary foreseeable obstacles such as holidays do not justify extensions, the court recognized that obstacles arising from the outbreak of hostilities may constitute valid grounds.
The court accepted the Defendant's explanation that its technical team responsible for the relevant functionalities is based in the Middle East, and that the internal employee providing technical support for the attacked embodiments since the beginning of the case is resident in Israel. Due to flight restrictions caused by events of the past two weeks, this employee could not safely return to his place of work from international travel. The court found it plausible that security-related information in the cybersecurity field cannot be easily accessed from anywhere in the world, making the Defendant dependent on the on-site assistance of this employee.
Balancing the parties' interests and the public interest in swift proceedings, the court found a two-week extension to be sufficient, appropriate, and justified. The events were not foreseeable such that the Defendant should have completed all necessary work well in advance. The court also found that the extension would not inappropriately impair the Claimant's interests or the preparation of the oral hearing scheduled for 17 November 2025. However, the court noted that if the Defendant were to file an application under R. 262A RoP regarding access restrictions, establishing a confidentiality club would take additional time and could jeopardize the oral hearing preparation. In that event, the extension would be shortened.
The final order extended the time period for the Defendant's three pleadings until 14 July 2025, but provided that if the Defendant applies for access restrictions under R. 262A RoP, the time period would only be extended until 9 July 2025.
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 Ltd. vs Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (EP 3 652 914) is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Ballinno B.V.vsKinexon Sports & Media GmbH
Ballinno B.V. sought a stay of revocation proceedings concerning EP 1 944 067 B1 pending the outcome of its appeal against the denial of provisional measures by the UPC Local Division Hamburg. The Central Division (Paris Seat) rejected the request, holding that an appeal against the denial of provisional measures does not generally justify a stay of revocation proceedings under Rule 295(m) RoP. The court also rejected Ballinno's request for compensation of legal costs.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.vsZhuhai Ouguan Electronic Technology Co., Ltd and Andreas Rentmeister e.K.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. filed an application for provisional measures against two defendants for alleged infringement of European Patents EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1, both titled 'Fluid cartridge.' While service to the China-based Defendant 1 was not completed, the Germany-based Defendant 2 was served but failed to lodge a substantiated objection within the time period set by the Court. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted the provisional measures against Defendant 2 by regular order, ordering cessation of infringing activities, provision of information, and imposing penalty payments for non-compliance.
NEC CorporationvsShenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd, et al.
NEC Corporation filed a patent infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 3 057 321 against multiple defendants. On 16 December 2025, the claimant applied to withdraw the action against all defendants, with each party bearing its own costs and seeking reimbursement of 60% of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 11,400) to the claimant.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbHvsBelparts Group N.V.
This is a procedural order from the Central Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP3812870. Belparts Group N.V. requested under Rule 340.1 RoP that its counterclaim for infringement pending before the CD Paris be heard together with its infringement action pending before the LD Munich. The court rejected the request, finding that allowing it would still result in multiple oral hearings and multiple decisions concerning the same patent, with infringement and revocation actions not being heard and decided at the same time.
Nanoval GmbH & Co. KGvsALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court reviewed an ex parte order for evidence preservation and inspection dated February 3, 2025, concerning European Patent EP 3 083 107. The respondent sought to set aside the order, arguing that the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of patent infringement and had not proven a risk of evidence destruction. The court rejected all of the respondent's arguments, confirmed the original order, and ordered the respondent to bear the costs of the review proceedings.
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.