ADOBE v KEEEX (CoA, 8 May 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 8 May 2026 (UPC_CoA_35/2026), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal rejects Adobe’s request for discretionary review (Rule 220.3 RoP) of the Paris Local Division’s refusal to dismiss, under Rule 334(h) RoP, KEEEX’s claims concerning non-UPC parts of EP 2 949 070 (Ireland, Norway, Poland, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom). The request is admissible but has become moot: in the meantime, by an order of 13 March 2026 between the same parties, the Court of Appeal held that the UPC lacks jurisdiction over those alleged infringements.

Question

Should leave to appeal a procedural order be granted where the point of law it raises has already been decided by the Court of Appeal in other proceedings between the same parties?

Decision

The general wording in the first-instance order mentioning the route of appeal does not amount to leave to appeal, so the request is formally admissible (paragraph 12). The test is whether the order is manifestly wrong or raises a fundamental point of law (paragraph 13). The order of 13 March 2026 has finally settled the jurisdiction question under Art. 7(2) of Regulation 1215/2012 (paragraph 14). The interests relied on are insufficient (paragraph 15): the Local Division simply has to apply that case law, Art. 75(2) UPCA being relevant (paragraph 16), and no risk of diverging application of Rule 334(h) RoP is shown (paragraph 17).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: discretionary review serves a purpose only if the point is not already settled by the Court of Appeal, otherwise the first-instance division should be asked to apply the settled case law.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 75(2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 220.2, 220.3, 333, 334(h) and 361

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Art. 7(2)

Case law cited

Suinno 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 (UPC_CoA_328/2024), EOFlow v Insulet, Court of Appeal, 4 February 2026, Adobe v KEEEX, Court of Appeal, 30 April 2026, Motorola v Ericsson, Court of Appeal, 6 September 2024, Centripetal v Keysight, Court of Appeal, 1 September 2025, Court of Appeal, 13 March 2026 (UPC_CoA_922/2025 to UPC_CoA_925/2025)

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.