UPC CoA 35/2026
24. Feb. 2026·EP2949070 · VERIFICATION PROCESS OF THE INTEGRITY OF NUMERICAL DATA BLOC
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase Closed (Klage abgewiesen)VerfahrensartBerufungKategorieHauptberufung
- Parteien
- Kläger
- ADOBE INC.Unternehmen
- ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITEDUnternehmen
- OpenAI OPCO LLCUnternehmen
- OpenAI Ireland Ltd.Unternehmen
- TRUEPIC INC.Unternehmen
- JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION PROJECTS LLCSonstige / unbekannt
- COALITION FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE AND AUTHENTICITY (C2PA)Unternehmen
Vertreter- Benjamin May-Jeantet Law Firm
- Philipp Cepl-DLA Piper
- David Por-Clifford Chance Partnerschaft mbB
- Thomas Cuche-Duclos, Thorne, Mollet-Viéville & Associés
- Division
- Court of Appeal
- Richter
- Technologie
- Electrical engineeringDigital communication
- Sprache
- French
- Erste Entscheidung
- 8. Mai 2026
| Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 124 |
| Richter Ulrike Voß | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: ADOBE INC. (12 Verfahren)·KEEEX SAS (12 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 11 weitere Verfahren
UPC CoA 95/2026·UPC CoA 1/2026·UPC CoA 924/2025·UPC CoA 925/2025·UPC CoA 922/2025 und 6 weitere
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
Weitere Verfahren: Court of Appeal·2026
- 2026-05-08Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)Öffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Court of Appeal (duty judge) dismissed the appellants' request for discretionary review under R. 220.3 RoP. The underlying legal question regarding the UPC's lack of jurisdiction over alleged infringements in non-UPC member states had already been definitively resolved by the Court of Appeal's order of 13 March 2026, rendering the appellants' request moot.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (5)
- Admissibility of discretionary review under R. 220.3 RoP
- UPC jurisdiction over infringement in non-UPC member states (Art. 7(2) Regulation 1215/2012)
- Summary rejection of claims under R. 334(h) RoP
- Mootness following a definitive appellate ruling on the underlying legal question
- Scope and consequences of a Court of Appeal order declining jurisdiction for non-UPC territories
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Verfahren abgeschlossen | 2026-05-08 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Entscheidung | 2026-05-08 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Final Order | 2026-05-08 | Öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2026-03-30 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-03-30 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Other document Appellant | 2026-03-30 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Other document Appellant | 2026-03-30 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Mitteilung | 2026-03-18 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2026-03-04 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-03-04 | Nicht öffentlich |
The request for discretionary review is admissible because the first-instance division did not explicitly grant leave to appeal — its reference to R. 220.2 RoP was merely a standard informational formula, not an express authorisation
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 220.3 RoP; UPC_CoA_586/2024; UPC_CoA_1/2024; UPC_CoA_328/2024; UPC_CoA_930/2025; UPC_CoA_1/2026The underlying legal question regarding lack of UPC jurisdiction over infringement in non-UPC member states was definitively resolved by the Court of Appeal's order of 13 March 2026 in UPC_CoA_922-925/2025, rendering the present request without object
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 7(2) Regulation 1215/2012; Art. 75(2) UPCA
The questions raised are of general importance and have not yet been decided by the Court of Appeal, warranting discretionary review to ensure uniform application of R. 334(h) RoP
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 220.3 RoP; R. 334(h) RoPThere is a persisting legitimate interest in the Court of Appeal ruling on summary dismissal of claims under R. 334(h) and R. 361 RoP because the claims for non-UPC territories were not formally rejected by the earlier Court of Appeal order
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 334(h) RoP; R. 361 RoP