UPC CoA 95/2026
Jun 15, 2026·EP2949070 · VERIFICATION PROCESS OF THE INTEGRITY OF NUMERICAL DATA BLOC
- Case details
- StatusCase ClosedActionAppealCategoryMain appeal
- Parties
- Claimants
- ADOBE INC.Operating co.
- ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITEDOperating co.
- OpenAI OPCO LLCOperating co.
- OpenAI Ireland Ltd.Operating co.
- TRUEPIC INC.Operating co.
- JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION PROJECTS LLCOther / unknown
- COALITION FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE AND AUTHENTICITY (C2PA)Operating co.
Representatives- Benjamin May-Jeantet Law Firm
- Philipp Cepl-Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP
- David Por-Clifford Chance Partnerschaft mbB
- Thomas Cuche-Duclos, Thorne, Mollet-Viéville & Associés
- Division
- Court of Appeal
- Judges
- Technology
- Electrical engineeringDigital communication
- Language
- French
- First decided
- Jul 10, 2026
| Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|
| All UPC | 124 |
| Judge Bart van den Broek | Locked |
At the UPC: ADOBE INC. (12 cases)·KEEEX SAS (12 cases)
This dispute contains 11 other proceedings
UPC CoA 35/2026·UPC CoA 1/2026·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
- 2026-07-10Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)Public
Summary: 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.
Show the legal issues (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
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Case closed | 2026-07-10 | Not public |
| Order | 2026-07-10 | Not public |
| Order | 2026-07-10 | Public |
| Receipt | 2026-07-02 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-07-02 | Not public |
| Exhibit Respondent | 2026-07-02 | Not public |
| Statement of defence | 2026-07-02 | Not public |
| Formal Deficiency found | 2026-07-02 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-07-02 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-07-02 | Not public |
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.
RespondentLegal basis: R. 119 RoP; R. 125 RoP; Case management order of 8 September 2025The 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.
RespondentLegal basis: 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.
RespondentLegal basis: R. 220.3 RoP
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.
ClaimantLegal basis: Case management order of 8 September 2025The interim damages claim was filed too late and the rapporteur ignored the formalities required by R. 263 RoP before admitting it.
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 263 RoPThe first-instance division should have summarily dismissed the interim damages claim.
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 220.3 RoP