Adobe v KEEEX (CoA, 10 July 2026)

Date	10 July 2026
Court	CoA
Division	Luxembourg (LU)
Type of action	Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
Registry reference	UPC-CoA-95/2026
Parties	Adobe Inc., Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited v. KEEEX SAS

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 10 July 2026 (UPC_CoA_95/2026), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal rejects the request for discretionary review lodged by Adobe Inc. and Adobe Systems Software Ireland against the order of the Paris Local Division of 1 June 2026, which had refused leave to appeal. In the infringement action brought by Keeex (EP 2 949 070, UPC_CFI_530/2025), the request for an interim award of EUR 100 million (material damage) and EUR 20 million (non-material damage), made in the reply after the claim for damages was withdrawn, therefore remains before the Court of First Instance. The order confirms how narrow discretionary review is.

Question

Does an undertaking to have damages determined in separate proceedings (Rule 125) bar a later request for an interim award of damages (Rule 119), and does the issue warrant discretionary review?

Decision

No. Review requires a manifestly wrong decision or a fundamental point of law (paragraph 25), neither condition is met (paragraph 26). The undertaking of 5 September 2025 concerned the damages claimed in the statement of claim and was not a waiver of all financial compensation (paragraph 27). An interim award, being provisional, is distinct from final damages, even if both rest on the same facts (paragraph 28). The request was not late, since Adobe had the opportunity to respond, and Rule 263 was not disregarded (paragraphs 29 and 30). The request for summary rejection (Rule 334(h)) is dismissed: the merits are for the Court of First Instance (paragraph 31).

Key points for practice

Practical point: deferring the determination of damages to Rule 125 proceedings does not, absent an express undertaking, rule out a request for an interim award of damages under Rule 119 in the main action.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 9.1, 13.1(k), 36, 119, 125, 220.3, 263, 333 and 334
Case law cited: Motorola Mobility v Ericsson, Court of Appeal, 6 September 2024, Centripetal v Keysight, Court of Appeal, 1 September 2025

Related decisions

Keeex v Adobe Systems Software Ireland, 1 June 2026, Paris Local Division order against which review was sought.

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.

Going further

Lexicon: UPC Court of Appeal.

Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.

Source and translations

Official source: Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language: not recorded
Translation available: no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked: not recorded

Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

No case number recorded in this record.

First instance cited in the decision: UPC_CFI_530/2025

Parties

defendantKEEEX SAS10 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantAdobe Inc.normalised name: ADOBE INC11 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantAdobe Systems Software Ireland Limitednormalised name: ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED12 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

27 November 2025 KEEEX v ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND (CFI, 27 November 2025) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_530/2025
Toutes les exceptions préliminaires sont rejetées : la compétence repose sur l'article 7, point 2, de Bruxelles I bis, s'étend aux parties nationales hors JUB selon l'arrêt BSH, et la division de Paris est compétente.
4 February 2026 KEEEX v ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND (CFI, 4 February 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_530/2025
La division locale de Paris refuse de rendre une décision par défaut contre KEEEX, qui a justifié dans le délai du blocage des fonds puis produit la garantie dans la forme précisée, les objections d'Adobe étant purement formelles.
1 June 2026 KEEEX v ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND (CFI, 1 June 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_530/2025
La demande de réexamen de l’ordonnance du 24 avril 2026 est rejetée, la demande de provision sur dommages-intérêts restant dans le débat. L’autorisation d’appel est refusée.
25 June 2026 KEEEX v Adobe Systems Software Ireland (CFI, 25 June 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_530/2025
La nouvelle demande de modification du brevet est rejetée, l’ajout de deux produits Truepic est un changement de demande irrecevable et les éléments nouveaux tardifs sont écartés, sauf trois points admis au titre de la règle 36.
20 July 2026 KEEEX v ADOBE (CFI, 20 July 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_530/2025
La garantie pour frais de 200 000 euros imposée à KEEEX est augmentée de 100 000 euros, à fournir sous forme de garantie bancaire dans un délai d'un mois.
29 July 2026 KEEEX v ADOBE (CFI, 29 July 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_530/2025
Les demandes de révision de KEEEX et d'Adobe sont rejetées : la nouvelle demande de modification du brevet, l'ajout de produits Truepic et les développements tardifs sur la contrefaçon restent écartés.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La demande de révision discrétionnaire d’Adobe est rejetée : la demande de provision de Keeex ne viole pas l’engagement procédural, n’est pas tardive et sera examinée au fond.
Appeal: Decision of the Court of Appeal (first instance cited: UPC_CFI_530/2025).
Instance: Court of Appeal decision.

Patents mentioned

EP 2 949 070 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

KEEEX v ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND (CFI, 1 June 2026) cited in this record
Centripetal v Keysight Technologies (CoA, 1 September 2025) cited in this record
Motorola Mobility v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (CoA, 6 September 2024) cited in this record
KEEEX v ADOBE (CFI, 20 July 2026) cites this decision

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 2 949 070` Verification process of the integrity of numerical data bloc recorded proprietor: Aix-Marseille Université et Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 8 other decision(s): Adobe v Keeex (CoA, 13 March 2026) · KEEEX v ADOBE (CFI, 29 July 2026) · KEEEX v Adobe Systems Software Ireland (CFI, 25 June 2026) · KEEEX v ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND (CFI, 1 June 2026) · ADOBE v KEEEX (CoA, 8 May 2026) · Adobe v KEEEX (CoA, 30 April 2026) · KEEEX v ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND (CFI, 27 November 2025) · KEEEX v Adobe Systems Software Ireland (CFI, 8 September 2025)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet · European Patent Register existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically) mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis

The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.