Adobe v KEEEX (CoA, 30 April 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 30 April 2026 (UPC_CoA_1/2026), the Court of Appeal dismisses as wholly inadmissible Adobe’s immediate appeal against the Paris Local Division’s order of 19 December 2025 setting at EUR 50,000 the security for costs to be provided by KEEEX (EP 2 949 070). The contested order wrongly stated that it could be appealed under Rule 220.1 RoP, whereas a security order falls under Rule 220.2 and requires leave to appeal. Having spotted the error itself, Adobe could not rely on it.

Question

Is an immediate appeal against a security for costs order, lodged without leave from the Court of First Instance, admissible where the order wrongly states that it can be appealed under Rule 220.1 RoP?

Decision

Under Rule 158.3 RoP, a security order falls under Rule 220.2, leave must be expressly granted and a mere reference to the applicable rules is not leave (paragraphs 16 to 20 and 24). The Local Division’s error is not an excusable one for Adobe, which had flagged it in its statement of grounds and could have sought leave in time (paragraphs 25 to 28). The Court declines to extend the time limit, to carry out a discretionary review, to refer the matter back for leave or to grant re-establishment of rights (Rule 320 RoP), since Adobe can still appeal together with the final decision (paragraphs 29 to 31). For completeness, it notes that the parties’ relative financial position is not a criterion under Rule 158 (paragraph 33).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: for an order falling under Rule 220.2 RoP, seek leave to appeal within the time limit, even if the operative part refers to another route of appeal.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 62 and 73

Rules of Procedure

Rules 152, 158, 220.1, 220.2, 224.1, 229 and 320

Case law cited

Suinno Mobile v Microsoft, Court of Appeal, 9 October 2024, Photon Wave v Seoul Viosys, Court of Appeal, 15 October 2024, Ballinno v Kinexon, Court of Appeal, 12 May 2025, EOFlow v Insulet, Court of Appeal, 4 February 2026, Abbott v Dexcom, Court of Appeal, 14 March 2024, AIM v Supponor, Court of Appeal, 26 April 2024, Hanshow Technology v VusionGroup, Court of Appeal, 29 July 2024, Rematec v Europe Forestry, Court of Appeal, 30 March 2026, Audi v NST, Court of Appeal, 17 September 2024

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.