Opens in a new tab

KEEEX v ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND (CFI, 4 February 2026)

Date4 February 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 SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED, ADOBE INC., OPEN AI OPCO LLC, OPEN AI IRELAND LTD, TRUEPIC INC., JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOUND…

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 4 February 2026 (UPC_CFI_530/2025), the Paris Local Division, sitting as a full panel, dismissed the request by Adobe Systems Software Ireland Ltd and Adobe Inc. for a default decision against KEEEX SAS, which had allegedly failed to provide in time the EUR 200,000 bank guarantee for the defendants’ costs ordered on 19 December 2025. For the division, a default decision under Rule 158.5 remains discretionary and is reserved for a genuine lack of diligence.

Question

Does filing, within the time limit, a certificate that the funds have been blocked, followed after clarification by the judge-rapporteur by an on-demand guarantee, amount to a failure warranting a default decision under Rules 158.5 and 355.1(a)?

Decision

Rule 158.5 provides that the Court « may » give a default decision: that power is exercised in light of efficiency, fairness and proportionality, as the Court of Appeal noted in Microsoft v Suinno. On 16 January 2026, the last day of the period, KEEEX filed a certificate from its bank, CIC, confirming that EUR 200,000 had been blocked, and on 26 January 2026 an on-demand financial guarantee, in line with the judge-rapporteur’s clarification of 16 January. Adobe’s objections (signatories’ authority, filing of a copy, validity clause) are purely formal and not conditions of validity. Adobe did not prove its assertions (Rule 271.2), and « final decision » in the guarantee will be construed under the UPC rules. No lack of diligence was established. An appeal lies under Rule 220.2.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 48(6)
Rules of Procedure
Rules 158.5, 220.2, 271.2, 284 and 355.1(a)
Case law cited
Microsoft v Suinno, Court of Appeal, 12 July 2025, UPC_CoA_363/2025

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.


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
  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

    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.

  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 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.
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.