Visibly v Easee (CFI, 26 June 2025)

Date	26 June 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Hamburg (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_26135/2025 · ORD_26598/2025
Parties	Easee B.V., Yves Prevoo, Easee Holding B.V.

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

By order of 26 June 2025, the judge rapporteur Schilling (Hamburg Local Division) stayed for three months the whole of Visibly’s infringement action on EP 3 918 974 against Easee B.V., Easee Holding B.V. and their managing director Yves Prevoo (UPC_CFI_525/2024 and UPC_CFI_14/2025), both companies having been declared bankrupt in the Netherlands on 27 and 30 May 2025. The stay extends to the solvent director and suspends the obligation to provide the security for costs ordered on 30 May 2025.

Question

Does the insolvency of two defendants justify staying the whole action, including against a solvent co-defendant, and what becomes of the security for costs?

Decision

Insolvency, proved by the Dutch court orders, justifies a stay under Rule 311.1, the court may order it as soon as it learns of the insolvency, from whatever source, and the representatives may apply for it (sections 1(a) and 1(b)). A stay ordinarily covers the whole proceedings. Continuing against the director alone is not appropriate given doubts as to his liability (section 1(c)). The obligation to provide security is suspended. The Rule 335 power to revoke is also suspended by the pending appeal (section 2). Visibly may withdraw against the insolvent companies (Rule 311.3, section 3). Time periods are suspended (Rule 296.3).

Key points for practice

Practical point: a defendant’s bankruptcy may freeze the action against all defendants and suspend a security for costs order, the claimant may withdraw against the insolvent company to pursue the others.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Art. 63(1), Art. 69(4)
Rules of Procedure: Rules 158, 265, 295, 296.3, 310, 311.1, 311.3 and 335
Directive 2004/48/EC: Art. 11
Case law cited: Koninklijke Philips v Belkin, 29 October 2024, AorticLab v Emboline, 20 June 2025 (Court of Appeal)

Related decisions

Visibly, 30 May 2025, security for costs order.
Easee v Visibly, 1 July 2025, consequent stay of the appeals.

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: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

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.

Parties

claimantEasee Holding B.V.5 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantEasee B.V.5 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantYves Prevoo3 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

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Le juge rapporteur suspend toute l'instance pour trois mois en raison de la faillite d'Easee B.V. et d'Easee Holding, y compris à l'égard du dirigeant, ce qui suspend l'obligation de constituer la garantie pour frais.
Appeal: No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance: First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

EP 3 918 974 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Easee v Visibly (CoA, 1 July 2025) cited in this record
AorticLab v Emboline (CoA, 20 June 2025) cited in this record
Visibly v Easee (CFI, 30 May 2025) cited in this record
Koninklijke Philips v Belkin (CoA, 29 October 2024) cited in this record
Easee v Visibly (CoA, 26 June 2025) 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 3 918 974`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 6 other decision(s): Visibly v Easee (CoA, 23 July 2025) · Easee v Visibly (CoA, 1 July 2025) · Easee v Visibly (CoA, 26 June 2025) · Visibly v Easee (CFI, 30 May 2025) · Yves Prevoo v Visibly (CFI, 18 December 2024) · Easee v Visibly (CFI, 24 October 2024)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked 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.