Centripetal v Keysight Technologies (UPC_CoA_805/2025)
Decision date:
01 September 2025
Osborne Clarke summary
- This was a decision of the Court of Appeal on a request for discretionary review of a procedural order under Rule 220.3 RoP.
- The judge-rapporteur had rejected Centripetal's request for a further exchange of written pleadings following the launch of further allegedly infringing products by Keysight. Centripetal sought discretionary review.
- The Court of Appeal rejected Centripetal's request.
- Rule 36 RoP permits a party to make a reasoned request for permission for further exchanges of written pleadings. However, given the stage of proceedings, the proximity of the oral hearing and the fact it had taken Centripetal 4 months from the launch of Keysight's new products and 5 weeks from filing its rejoinder to the reply to the defence to make its request, the Court of Appeal held that the judge-rapporteur's decision was "not manifestly wrong". It remained open to Centripetal to bring separate actions in relation to the new products.
- The Court of Appeal also noted that Centripetal had not shown that the order raised a fundamental question of law or that its review was necessary to ensure a consistent application and interpretation of the RoP.
Issue
Curious about how UPC decisions might impact your business? Have questions about the UPC?
Reach out to our patents team for expert guidance and support.