Adobe v Keeex (CoA, 13 March 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 13 March 2026 on four joined appeals (UPC_CoA_922/2025 to UPC_CoA_925/2025) by Adobe, OpenAI, Truepic, the Joint Development Foundation and the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity, the Court of Appeal set aside the Paris Local Division’s order of 27 November 2025 and declared that the UPC lacks jurisdiction over Keeex’s alleged infringement of the Swiss, Spanish, UK, Irish, Norwegian and Polish parts of EP 2 949 070. The decision sets limits to long-arm jurisdiction: the forum of the harmful event does not extend to non-UPC states, and Art. 71b(3) of Regulation 1215/2012 must be substantiated in the statement of claim.

Facts and procedure

Keeex sued the defendants before the Paris Local Division on 17 June 2025 for infringement of EP 2 949 070, which concerns external verification of the integrity and authenticity of digital data blocks. The defendants raised preliminary objections to internal and international jurisdiction between August and November 2025. The Local Division rejected them on 27 November 2025, holding that it had jurisdiction for Switzerland, Spain, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Norway and Poland. The appeals were lodged in December 2025, Adobe’s request for expedition was refused and the hearing took place by videoconference on 2 March 2026. Truepic’s request for a stay had become moot after its review request was dismissed on 12 January 2026.

The applicable law

The UPC’s international jurisdiction follows from Art. 31 UPCA and Regulation 1215/2012, in particular Art. 4(1), 7(2), 24(4) and 71b. Under CJEU case law (Shevill, Pez Hejduk, BSH Hausgeräte v Electrolux), the court of the place of the harmful event rules only on damage within its territory. Art. 71b(3) allows a court to deal with damage outside the Union where it already has jurisdiction and the defendant owns property of sufficient value in a Member State with a link to the dispute (paragraphs 37 to 39).

Question

Does the UPC, seised on the basis of the place of the harmful event, have jurisdiction over infringement of national parts of the patent in states not party to the UPCA, and on what conditions may Art. 71b(3) found that jurisdiction?

Decision

As Keeex relied only on Art. 7(2), jurisdiction is limited to UPC territory (paragraphs 36, 51 and 52). The claimant must set out in the statement of claim the facts and law justifying internal and international jurisdiction (paragraphs 41 to 44). Keeex’s statement of claim explained neither the conditions of Art. 71b(3) nor the position of the other national parts of the patent, and exhibits filed later could not cure that gap (paragraphs 49, 53 and 54). The Court left open whether that provision covers infringement of other national parts of the patent.

Ireland, which has not ratified the UPCA, is not a Contracting Member State (paragraph 46). Art. 6 of the Regulation and Art. 14 of the French Civil Code do not apply before the UPC (paragraphs 31 to 33 and 55). The order was set aside, lack of jurisdiction was declared for the six states and the other requests were dismissed (paragraph 56).

Key points for practice

• The forum of the place of the harmful event (Art. 7(2)) gives the UPC jurisdiction only for damage sustained within its territory.
• The conditions of Art. 71b(3) (existing jurisdiction, property of sufficient value in a Member State, link with the dispute) must be pleaded in the statement of claim. Late exhibits do not cure the defect.
• For the UPC, Ireland remains a non-contracting state until it ratifies the UPCA.
• Practical point: a claimant targeting non-UPC national parts must expressly plead the basis of jurisdiction and document, from the statement of claim, the defendants’ assets in a Member State.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 31 and 33(1)(a)

Rules of Procedure

Preamble (paragraph 7) and Rules 9.3(b), 13.1(i), 263 and 333

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Art. 4(1), 6, 7(2), 24(4) and 71b(2) and (3)

Other texts

French Civil Code, Art. 14

Case law cited

Aylo v Dish, Court of Appeal, 3 September 2024, Barco v Yealink, Court of Appeal, 28 November 2025, Sibio v Abbott, Court of Appeal, 19 August 2024, CJEU, Shevill, C-68/93, 7 March 1995, CJEU, Pez Hejduk, C-441/13, 22 January 2015, CJEU, BSH Hausgeräte v Electrolux, C-339/22, 25 February 2025

Related decisions

• Keeex v Adobe Systems Software Ireland, 27 November 2025, Paris Local Division order set aside.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.