Mannheim Local Division UPC_CFI_660/2024 (CCR: UPC_CFI_134/2025)

Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 27 June 2025 concerning EP 3 652 914 (request for the extension of a time period)

CLAIMANT:

Centripetal Ltd.

Galway Technology Centre, Mervue Business

Park - 7XPF+6C - Galway - IE

Represented by Armin Kühne

DEFENDANT/APPLICANT:

Palo Alto Networks, Inc. - 3000 Tannery Way - 95054 CA - Santa Clara - US Represented by Henrik Lehment

PATENT AT ISSUE:

European patent EP 3 652 914

PANEL/DIVISION:

Panel of the Local Division in Mannheim

DECIDING JUDGES:

This order was issued by the legally qualified judge Böttcher acting as judge-rapporteur.

LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English

SUBJECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS: Patent infringement action - request for the extension of a time period

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE FACTS:

Defendant requests the extension of the time period 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 by two weeks until 14 July 2025 or alternatively by a period of time deemed appropriated by the court.

The Claimant opposes the request.

For further details, reference is made to the parties' written pleadings.

REASONS FOR THE ORDER:

As the Claimant rightfully points out, the discretion given by R. 9.3 (a) RoP has to be construed narrowly and should be exercise with caution. An extension should be granted only under justified exceptional circumstances in order not to undermine the time period regime set out in the RoP which ensures that the court proceedings can be concluded swiftly. In principle, the time periods provided are sufficient. Work must be organised in such a way that time periods can be met even in the event of foreseeable obstacles such as holidays. However, obstacles arising as a result of the outbreak of hostilities may justify an extension of the deadline.

When exercising its discretion, the court has to weigh up the interests of the parties involved as well as the public interest in a swift and appropriate court proceedings, taking into account the circumstances of the individual case and the overarching principles mentioned supra.

The court has no reason to doubt that the technical team of Defendant, which is responsible for the relevant functionalities, is based in the Middle East and that the internal employee of the defendant, who provides the technical support concerning the attacked embodiments in the proceedings at hand since the beginning of the case, is resident in Israel and cannot safely return to his place of work there from international travels due to flight restriction due to the events of the past two weeks. Furthermore, the court has no reason to doubt that the defendant is dependent on the on-site assistance of this employee from his place of work as stated. It is plausible that security-related information in the field of cybersecurity cannot be easily accessed from anywhere in the world.

Against this backdrop, in principle, an extension of two weeks as requested is sufficient, appropriate and justified. The events of the past two weeks were not foreseeable in the sense that the Defendant should have ensured that all necessary work had been completed two weeks or any other period well before the date when the respective pleadings are due. By the extension of the time period by two weeks, Claimants interests are not impaired in an inappropriate manner, taking into account the obstacles on Defendant's side as discussed supra. The extension does not impair the preparation of the oral hearing either. However, in the event that Defendant wishes to file an application pursuant to R. 262A RoP with regard to access restrictions, an extension of two weeks may put the appropriate preparation of the oral hearing scheduled for 17 November 2025 at risk because it will take time to establish the confidentiality club. Thus, in this event, the time period is extended to 8 July 2025 only.

In order to enable the Defendant to reconcile its arguments on non-infringement with those on validity, the extension also applies to the time period for the reply to the defence to the counterclaim of revocation and the defence against the application to amend the patent.

ORDER:

The time period for Defendant's 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 is extended until 14 July 2025 .

In the event that the Defendant should apply for access restrictions pursuant to R 262A RoP, the time period will only be extended until 9 July 2025 .

ORDER DETAILS

Order no. ORD_30206/2025 in ACTION NUMBER: ACT_59828/2024

UPC number: UPC_CFI_660/2024

Action type:

Infringement Action

Related proceeding no. Application No.:

29553/2025

Application Type:

Generic procedural Application

Issued in Mannheim on 27 June 2025

NAME AND SIGNATURE

Böttcher Legally qualified judge