UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CoA 1/2026

Jan 2, 2026·EP2949070 · VERIFICATION PROCESS OF THE INTEGRITY OF NUMERICAL DATA BLOC

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Claim dismissed)
Action
Appeal
Category
Main appeal
Parties
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Court of Appeal
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Digital communication
Language
French
First decided
Apr 30, 2026
How this compares
How long the court takes to reach a first decision.
Median days to first decision
All UPC124
Judge Klaus GrabinskiLocked
Judge Nathalie SabotierLocked
Judge Bart van den BroekLocked

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

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 11 other proceedings

UPC CoA 95/2026·UPC CoA 35/2026·UPC CoA 924/2025·UPC CoA 925/2025·UPC CoA 922/2025 and 6 more

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Court of Appeal·2026

Decisions
  • 2026-04-30
    Appeal RoP220.2Public

    Summary: The Court of Appeal declared Adobe's appeal against the Paris Local Division's security-for-costs order of 19 December 2025 entirely inadmissible. Adobe had appealed without first obtaining leave to appeal from the Court of First Instance as required by Rule 220.2 RoP, and the Court of Appeal found that Adobe was aware of the correct procedural rule and could not rely on an excusable error. All subsidiary requests (extension of time, restitutio in integrum under R.320 RoP, reopening of oral proceedings) were also rejected.

    Show the legal issues (5)
    • Admissibility of appeal under Rule 220.2 RoP without prior leave from Court of First Instance
    • Effect of incorrect reference to Rule 220.1 instead of Rule 220.2 in contested order
    • Excusable error doctrine in appellate procedure
    • Restitutio in integrum under Rule 320 RoP
    • Security for costs under Rule 158 RoP — amount and criteria
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
Case closed2026-04-30Not public
Decision2026-04-30Not public
Final Order2026-04-30Public
Receipt2026-04-10Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-10Not public
Document2026-04-10Not public
Document2026-04-10Not public
Receipt2026-04-06Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-06Not public
Document2026-04-06Not public
Document2026-04-06Not public
Document2026-04-06Not public
Document2026-04-06Not public
Document2026-04-06Not public
Order2026-04-01Not public
Order2026-04-01Public
Oral procedure closed2026-03-11Not public
Hearing recording reference document2026-03-11Not public
Summons to oral hearing2026-03-04Not public
Summons2026-03-04Public
Oral procedure opened2026-02-25Not public
Written procedure closed2026-02-25Not public
Receipt2026-02-24Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-24Not public
Document2026-02-24Not public
Communication2026-02-23Not public
Receipt2026-02-20Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-20Not public
Other document Appellant2026-02-20Not public
Order2026-02-19Not public
Order2026-02-19Public
Receipt2026-01-23Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-23Not public
Statement of Response2026-01-23Not public
Statement of Response2026-01-23Not public
Receipt2026-01-21Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-21Not public
Other document Appellant2026-01-21Not public
Publication2026-01-12Not public
Receipt2026-01-02Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-02Not public
Fee2026-01-02Not public
Proof of payment2026-01-02Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-02Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-02Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-02Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-02Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-02Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-02Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-02Not public
Statement of appeal and statement of the grounds of appeal2026-01-02Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • The order of the Court of First Instance contained an erroneous reference to Rule 220.1 instead of Rule 220.2 RoP

    RespondentLegal basis: Rule 158.3 RoP; Rule 220.2 RoP

  • Adobe was aware of the error and identified it in its own appeal brief, so it cannot rely on an excusable error excuse for failing to obtain prior leave

    ClaimantLegal basis: Rule 220.2 RoP; Rule 229 RoP

  • Appeal against a security-for-costs order is inadmissible without prior leave from the Court of First Instance in the absence of an appeal against the final decision

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 73 UPCA; Rule 220.2 RoP
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • The incorrect reference to Rule 220.1 in the contested order should be interpreted as granting direct leave to appeal

    RespondentLegal basis: Rule 220.2 RoP

  • The Court of Appeal should grant additional time to file a request for leave to appeal or for discretionary review

    RespondentLegal basis: Rule 220.2 RoP

  • Restitutio in integrum should be granted under Rule 320 RoP because the failure to meet the 15-day deadline was beyond Adobe's control

    RespondentLegal basis: Rule 320 RoP

  • The Court of Appeal should reopen oral proceedings on the admissibility question

    RespondentLegal basis: Rule 229 RoP