UPClytics
View all cases

UPC CoA 95/2026

Jun 15, 2026·EP2949070: VERIFICATION PROCESS OF THE INTEGRITY OF NUMERICAL DATA BLOC

Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Appeal
Category
Main Appeal
Division
Court of Appeal
Technology
Computing & AI
Language
French
First decided
Jul 10, 2026
Decisions
  • 2026-07-10
    Appeal decisionRequest for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)

    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.

    Legal issues:Admissibility of discretionary review under R. 220.3 RoPWhether the first-instance division's decisions were manifestly erroneousClaimant's entitlement to introduce an interim damages claim (provision sur dommages-intérêts) in the reply brief after withdrawing the main damages claimWhether withdrawal commitment at case management conference precluded the interim damages claimCompliance with procedural formalities under R. 263 RoP for admission of new claimsSummary dismissal of interim damages claim
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
action.phaseChange.caseClose2026-07-10Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-07-10Not public
Order2026-07-10Public
Receipt2026-07-02Not public
Cover sheet2026-07-02Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-07-02Not public
Statement of defence2026-07-02Not public
Formal Deficiency found2026-07-02Not public
Receipt2026-07-02Not public
Cover sheet2026-07-02Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-07-02Not public
Statement of Response2026-07-02Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-06-17Not public
Order2026-06-17Public
action.publishOrderDecision.case2026-06-16Not public
Receipt2026-06-15Not public
Cover sheet2026-06-15Not public
Fee2026-06-15Not public
Proof of payment2026-06-15Not public
Exhibit Appellant2026-06-15Not public
Exhibit Appellant2026-06-15Not public
Exhibit Appellant2026-06-15Not public
Exhibit Appellant2026-06-15Not public
Exhibit Appellant2026-06-15Not public
Exhibit Appellant2026-06-15Not public
Exhibit Appellant2026-06-15Not public
Exhibit Appellant2026-06-15Not public
Exhibit Appellant2026-06-15Not public
Statement of appeal and statement of the grounds of appeal2026-06-15Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.
  • 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 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.

    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
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.
  • 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 2025
  • The 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 RoP
  • The first-instance division should have summarily dismissed the interim damages claim.

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 220.3 RoP