Opens in a new tab

KEEEX v ADOBE (CFI, 20 July 2026)

Date20 July 2026
CourtCFI
DivisionParis (FR) Local Division
Type of actionInfringement Action
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_530/2025
Registry referenceUPC_CFI_530/2025
PartiesKEEEX SAS v. ADOBE INC., ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED, OPEN AI OPCO LLC, OPEN AI IRELAND LTD, TRUEPIC INC., JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOUNDA…

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

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 20 July 2026 (UPC_CFI_530/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division partly granted Adobe’s request to increase the EUR 200,000 security imposed on KEEEX under Rule 158 RoP on 19 December 2025: the security is increased by EUR 100,000, i.e. 50% of the original amount, whereas Adobe sought up to EUR 1.8 million. The order confirms that a final security order may be revisited during the proceedings, but only in the light of new developments and with due regard to the claimant’s effective access to justice.

Question

Can security for costs fixed by an order that has become final be increased during the proceedings, and to what extent?

Decision

The request is admissible, since Rule 158 RoP allows security to be sought at any time. The judge disregards arguments on whether security is warranted at all, a point already decided, and recalls, with the Court of Appeal in La Siddhi v Athena, that SME status does not exempt a party from security but may bear on the amount. The counterclaim for revocation and the application to amend the patent are commonplace and show no exceptional complexity. The proliferation of Adobe’s own submissions is largely of its own making. By contrast, KEEEX’s EUR 120 million claim for interim damages under Rule 119 RoP, made in its reply, increased the defendants’ costs. Weighing proportionality and the right to an effective remedy (Art. 47 of the Charter) of a small company founded by the inventor, the judge sets the increase at EUR 100,000, to be provided as a bank guarantee within one month, failing which a decision by default may be given (Rule 158.4 RoP).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 69 and recital 2
Rules of Procedure
Rules 30.2, 119, 152, 158, 333 and 370.8
Directive 2004/48/EC
Enforcement Directive
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
Arts 47 and 52(1)
Case law cited
La Siddhi v Athena, Court of Appeal, 1 June 2026 (UPC_CoA_48/2026), Audi v NST, Court of Appeal, 17 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_219/2024), Adobe v KEEEX, Court of Appeal, 30 April 2026, Adobe v KEEEX, Court of Appeal (standing judge), 10 July 2026, Microsoft v Suinno, Paris Central Division, 27 December 2024 (UPC_CFI_164/2024), NanoString v Harvard, Munich Central Division, 17 December 2024, The Hague Local Division, 13 February 2024 (UPC_CFI_239/2023)

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.


Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

Lexicon: Patent infringement action.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).

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

  • UPC_CFI_530/2025 official number

Follow this case

Parties

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 10 July 2026 Adobe v KEEEX (CoA, 10 July 2026) Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision

    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.

  6. 20 July 2026 KEEEX v ADOBE (CFI, 20 July 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_530/2025
  7. 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
Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
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.
Appeal
An appeal is documented in the corpus (see above).
Instance
First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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.

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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.