Opens in a new tab

KEEEX v ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND (CFI, 1 June 2026)

Date1 June 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 1 June 2026 (UPC_CFI_530/2025), the panel of the Paris Local Division dismisses the request for review (Rule 333 RoP) filed by Adobe Systems Software Ireland and Adobe Inc. against the judge-rapporteur’s order of 24 April 2026, which had refused to strike out KEEEX’s claim for an interim award of damages of EUR 120 million made in its reply, and refuses immediate leave to appeal (EP 2 949 070). The order shows that a claim for interim damages may be made during the proceedings where the procedural agreement reached at the case management conference preserved it.

Question

Is a claim for interim damages raised for the first time in the reply inadmissible or bound to fail, where the determination of damages has been deferred to separate proceedings?

Decision

No. The procedural order of 8 September 2025, which deferred the determination of damages to separate proceedings (Rule 125 RoP), expressly preserved the possibility of an interim claim. The amount claimed does not deprive it of its interim character, since it is only a small share of the roughly EUR 7 billion originally sought. The claim could not reasonably have been made in the statement of claim, as KEEEX only gave up its claim for the determination of damages following a later procedural agreement, and the defendants answered it in their rejoinder. A further written round remains possible (Rule 36 RoP). Dismissal under Rule 334(f) and (h) RoP is not justified at this stage. Leave to appeal is refused, since the issue concerns the interpretation of a procedural agreement specific to the case. The reasons are not numbered.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rules 9.1, 9.2, 13, 36, 119, 125, 220.2, 263, 333 and 334

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
  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 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.
Appeal
An appeal is documented in the corpus (see above).
Instance
First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

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.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
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) · Adobe v KEEEX (CoA, 10 July 2026) · KEEEX v Adobe Systems Software Ireland (CFI, 25 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 recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · 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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.