1. Key takeaways
Saisie Order is Limited to Systems and Evidence Physically Available at Designated Premises
The inspection may only cover what is physically present at the premises explicitly named in the court order. A defendant is not obliged to grant access to systems or data stored outside the specified premises, nor to coordinate with personnel or infrastructure located outside UPC Member States. A defendant must only passively tolerate the inspection (e.g., unlocking doors, providing passwords), but is not required to actively set up a technical environment that does not already exist. The claimant bears the risk of incorrectly identifying the inspected entity or premises. Here, the premises belonged to a German sales subsidiary, not the U.S.-based parent company, and had no technical systems to inspect.
Because the requested systems and documentation were not present at
the designated location, and no legal obligation existed to make
them available, no breach of the order occurred, and the penalty
request was dismissed.
2. Division
LD Mannheim
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_636/2025
4. Type of proceedings
Infingement action / Application for Penalty Payment (following a Saisie Order)
5. Parties
Applicant:
Centripetal Limited
Defendant:
Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
6. Patent(s)
EP 3 281 580
7. Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 60 (3) UPCA, Rule 199 RoP, Rule 192.2(b) RoP
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
