UPC_CFI_414/2024_Aug01 – Centripetal v Keysight
- Court
- Local Division Mannheim
- Date
- Outcome
- Denied
- Sector
- Other
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Facts The claimant asked to be allowed to file a further brief with a new infringement theory after the defendant's reply. The defendant objected. The Judge-Rapporteur (JR) 1. It would lead to delays in view of the vacation period and a full agenda in September. 2. Further briefs (R. 36 RoP) are not to be used for new infringement theories. That would be contrary to the front-loaded character of the UPC procedure. The claimant can file a new case. Comment 1. I find the primary reason given irrelevant (although it shows that my plea about a better distribution of cases over the divisions has merit). 2. It goes without saying, in my opinion, that you cannot introduce a whole new infringement reasoning after the written phase. I also think that you cannot do so with respect to the same patent, same allegedly infringing products and same defendant in new proceedings after a decision in the present case.
Full Decision Text
Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_414/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 1 August 2025 CLAIMANT Centripetal Limited, Galway Technology Centre, Mervue Business Park -7XPF+6C -Galway –IE Represented by Ralph Nack DEFENDANTS 1) Keysight Technologies, Inc. (Applicant) - 1400 Fountaingrove Parkway - 95403 - Santa Rosa - US Represented by Klaus Haft 2) Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH (Applicant) - Herrenberger Straße 130 - 71034 - Böblingen - DE Represented by Klaus Haft PATENT AT ISSUE European Patent No. EP 3 821 580 PANEL/DIVISION Panel of the Local Division in Mannheim DECIDING JUDGES: This order was issued by the legally qualified judge Prof. Dr.Tochtermann acting as presiding judge and judge-rapporteur. LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: English SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS: R. 36 Request After having heard Defendants, the court had to dismiss Claimant’s request for a further written pleading. First, the introduction of such new infringement reading would warrant a further brief from Defendants for reasons of procedural fairness. A time limit for such a brief – taking into account the summer holiday season – could not be set before early September. In the light of the vacations of the panel members in this period and taking into account further oral hearings taking place before the LD Mannheim in September, there would not remain sufficient time to appropriately prepare the case for the oral hearing on 9/10 October 2025. Second, it has to be emphasized that defendants correctly point to the fact that their arguments submitted in their rejoinder were a mere reaction to the new infringement reading presented in the Reply. Third, Claimant’s rights are not unduly impaired by limiting the scope of arguments presented to those, which were contained in the briefs foreseen by the RoP. Claimant may file a new infringement action. The RoP impose a frond-loaded procedure on the court and the parties for good reason. Only if the substance matter, which had been defined by the Claimant in the SoC had been prepared by the briefs foreseen in the written phase of the case, the case is deemed to be sufficiently prepared for the oral hearing. Therefore, further written pleadings will have to be admitted only 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. It is however not a tool to introduce new infringement readings as the case proceeds as had happened with the Reply already. Finally, in the case at hand, it had to be taken into consideration, that the “click here” functionality attacked in the envisaged brief was known to the Claimant from ITC proceedings since 2023 as Defendants submit and prove by filing records of that hearing. Furthermore, Claimant could have realized Defendant’s further AI Stack functionality since its launch in March 2025 already. ORDER Claimant’s request of 25 July 2025for a further written pleading is dismissed. Issued in Mannheim on 1 August 2025 NAME AND SIGNATURE Tochtermann Presiding judge and judge-rapporteur
Key Holdings
- Request for further brief with new infringement theory refused.
- New theories contrary to front-loaded procedure (R. 36 RoP).
- Delay and court schedule cited as reasons.
Tags
- Case Management
- Front-loaded Proceedings
- Further Pleadings
- Infringement