UPC CFI 530/2025

At the UPC: KEEEX SAS (12 cases)·ADOBE INC. (12 cases)

• 2026-07-29
  InfringementPublic

  Summary: The Paris Local Division panel, sitting in plenary on applications for review under R. 333 RoP, rejected both KEEEX's and Adobe's challenges to the judge-rapporteur's order of 25 June 2026 on the admissibility of parts of KEEEX's 5 June 2026 brief, holding that the brief had to be confined to answering the validity points raised in the defendants' reply and that the defendant has the last word on infringement. KEEEX's request for leave to file a further brief under R. 36 RoP was also rejected.

  Show the legal issues (5)

  • application for review of a judge-rapporteur order under R. 333 RoP
  • scope of the R. 29(e) RoP brief limited to validity issues raised in reply
  • defendant's right to the last word on infringement
  • inadmissibility of late submissions under R. 9.2 RoP
  • leave to file a further brief under R. 36 RoP
• 2026-07-20
  InfringementPublic

  Summary: The court ordered a modification (increase) of the R. 158 RoP security for costs previously set at €200,000 by an initial order of 19 December 2025. The court found the increase of €100,000 (50% of the original amount) appropriate given that KEEEX introduced a €120 million provisional damages claim in its reply brief, requiring defendants to develop additional defence arguments. KEEEX must provide the additional security in the form of an EU-bank guarantee within one month.

  Show the legal issues (4)

  • Modification of R. 158 RoP security for costs
  • Criteria for increasing security for costs mid-proceedings
  • Access to justice for small/micro enterprises under UPC proceedings
  • Impact of introduction of large provisional damages claim on security for costs
• 2026-06-25
  Infringement ActionPublic

  Summary: The Paris Local Division rapporteur ruled on multiple procedural applications regarding KEEEX's 5 June 2026 written submission in this infringement action. The court rejected KEEEX's request for a further patent amendment under R.30.2 RoP, declared inadmissible as late the addition of new accused products (Truepic Lens, Script Truepic Display) and various new submissions from sections V and VI of the brief, while permitting certain limited elements under R.36 RoP and allowing defendants to respond to those elements in their final brief.

  Show the legal issues (5)

  • Admissibility of late submissions (R.9.2 RoP)
  • Additional round of written submissions (R.36 RoP)
  • Amendment of patent claims during proceedings (R.30.2 RoP)
  • Change of application (R.263 RoP)
  • Late addition of new accused products
• 2026-06-01
  Infringement ActionPublic

  Summary: The plenary panel rejected the defendants' request to revise the Judge-Rapporteur's order of 24 April 2026, which had refused to dismiss or declare inadmissible KEEEX's interim damages claim (provision sur dommages-interets). The panel also rejected the defendants' request for leave to appeal the present revision order.

  Show the legal issues (5)

  • Revision of a procedural order (R. 333 RoP)
  • Admissibility of interim damages claim (provision sur dommages-interets, R. 119 RoP) filed in reply brief
  • Timeliness of procedural requests (R. 9.2 RoP)
  • Summary rejection of provisional damages claim (R. 334(f) and (h) RoP)
  • Leave to appeal a revision order (R. 220.2 RoP)
• 2026-02-04
  Infringement ActionPublic

  Summary: Paris Local Division rejected Adobe's application for a default decision against KEEEX under R.158.5 and R.355.1 RoP. The court held that KEEEX had complied with the order to provide a bank guarantee (required following an earlier procedural order of 19 December 2025) and that Adobe's formal objections to the guarantee were unsubstantiated. The lack of diligence required to justify a default decision was not established.

  Show the legal issues (4)

  • Default decision application (R.158.5, R.355.1 RoP)
  • Bank guarantee requirements
  • Validity of bank guarantee under R.271.2 RoP
  • Conditions for lack of diligence justifying default decision
• 2025-11-27
  Infringement ActionPublic

  Summary: Paris Local Division rejected all preliminary objections raised by the defendants (Adobe, OpenAI, Truepic, JDF Projects and C2PA) in KEEEX's infringement action. The court upheld the jurisdiction of the UPC and the internal competence of the Paris Local Division under Art.33.1(a) UPCA, finding that infringing acts alleged in France established competence. Defendants were ordered to file their statements of defence by 2 January 2026. Costs deferred to the merits decision.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • Preliminary objection to UPC jurisdiction and Paris LD competence (R.19 RoP, Art.33.1(a) UPCA)
  • Brussels I Recast Art.7(2) applied to internet-based infringement
  • Infringing acts in France establishing Paris LD competence
• 2025-09-08
  Public

  Summary: The Paris Local Division issued a procedural order aligning service deadlines for the multiple defendants in the infringement action filed by KEEEX SAS against Adobe, OpenAI, TruePic, the Joint Development Foundation Projects and the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA) concerning EP 2 949 070. The order addressed technical difficulties encountered in serving defendants located in Ireland and the USA under The Hague Convention, and set extended time limits for responses.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • Alignment of service deadlines (R. 9.3 RoP)
  • International service under The Hague Convention (R. 274.1(a)(ii) RoP)
  • Service issues with US defendants