UPClytics
DEEN
AnmeldenTesten
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CoA 95/2026

15. Juni 2026·EP2949070 · VERIFICATION PROCESS OF THE INTEGRITY OF NUMERICAL DATA BLOC

Folgen
Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed
Verfahrensart
Berufung
Kategorie
Hauptberufung
Parteien
Beklagte
Vertreter
Division
Court of Appeal
Richter
Technologie
  • Electrical engineering
    Digital communication
Sprache
French
Erste Entscheidung
10. Juli 2026
Im Vergleich
Wie lange das Gericht bis zu einer ersten Entscheidung braucht.
Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC124
Richter Bart van den BroekGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: ADOBE INC. (12 Verfahren)·KEEEX SAS (12 Verfahren)

14 Tage kostenlos testenBereits Nutzer? Anmelden
Verwandte Verfahren
Alle Verfahren zu diesem Patent

Dieser Streit umfasst 11 weitere Verfahren

UPC CoA 35/2026·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

Entscheidungen
  • 2026-07-10
    Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)Öffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Court of Appeal rejected the request for discretionary review (R. 220.3 RoP) filed by Adobe Inc. and Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited against an order of the Paris Local Division (UPC_CFI_530/2025) dated 1 June 2026. The CoA found that none of the challenged rulings of the first-instance division were manifestly erroneous, upholding the division's decisions to allow KEEEX SAS to introduce an interim damages claim (provision sur dommages-intérêts) in its reply brief and to reject Adobe's request for summary dismissal of that claim.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (6)
    • Admissibility of discretionary review under R. 220.3 RoP
    • Whether the first-instance division's decisions were manifestly erroneous
    • Claimant's entitlement to introduce an interim damages claim (provision sur dommages-intérêts) in the reply brief after withdrawing the main damages claim
    • Whether withdrawal commitment at case management conference precluded the interim damages claim
    • Compliance with procedural formalities under R. 263 RoP for admission of new claims
    • Summary dismissal of interim damages claim
Dokumente
Alle 29 Dokumente anzeigen
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Verfahren abgeschlossen2026-07-10Nicht öffentlich
Anordnung2026-07-10Nicht öffentlich
Order2026-07-10Öffentlich
Receipt2026-07-02Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-07-02Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-07-02Nicht öffentlich
Statement of defence2026-07-02Nicht öffentlich
Formal Deficiency found2026-07-02Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-07-02Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-07-02Nicht öffentlich
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • The interim damages claim (provision sur dommages-intérêts) is procedurally distinct from the final damages claim that KEEEX agreed to withdraw; its provisional nature is not altered by the high nominal amount claimed (€120 million) or by the fact that it relies on the same underlying facts.

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 119 RoP; R. 125 RoP; Case management order of 8 September 2025

  • The case management order left open the possibility of filing an interim damages claim at a later stage, and filing it simultaneously with the formal withdrawal of the final damages claim in the reply brief was not unreasonable.

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 220.3 RoP (manifestly erroneous standard)

  • Adobe had sufficient notice of KEEEX's damages allegations from the statement of claim and of the possibility of an interim claim since the case management conference, so its procedural position was not unreasonably prejudiced.

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 220.3 RoP
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • KEEEX's commitment at the case management conference to withdraw its damages claim precluded it from later introducing an interim damages claim of €120 million, which is substantively identical to the withdrawn claim.

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Case management order of 8 September 2025

  • The interim damages claim was filed too late and the rapporteur ignored the formalities required by R. 263 RoP before admitting it.

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 263 RoP

  • The first-instance division should have summarily dismissed the interim damages claim.

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 220.3 RoP