Adobe Inc. and Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited v. KEEEX SAS

This case concerns a request for discretionary review (R. 220.3 RoP) filed by Adobe Inc. and Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited (Appellants) against an order of the Paris Local Division dated 10 February 2026 (UPC_CFI_530/2025), in proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 949 070.

The underlying facts are as follows. On 14 June 2025, KEEEX SAS (Respondent) brought an infringement action before the Paris Local Division against Adobe and other defendants (including OpenAI entities, TruePic Inc., Joint Development Foundation Projects LLC, and the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity) based on patent EP 2 949 070. On 17 December 2025, Adobe filed a request under R. 334(h) RoP seeking the dismissal of all claims relating to alleged infringement of the national parts of the patent in non-UPC states, specifically Ireland, Norway, Poland, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. In the alternative, Adobe requested leave to appeal. By order of 6 January 2026, the Judge-rapporteur dismissed both requests. Following an application under R. 333 RoP, the Panel issued the impugned order on 10 February 2026, dismissing the application to review the order of 6 January 2026 and noting that the order was subject to appeal under R. 220.2 RoP.

Adobe filed the request for discretionary review on 24 February 2026, arguing that the Court of First Instance should have granted leave to appeal because the questions raised had not yet been decided by the Court of Appeal and were of general importance. Adobe argued that the Court of Appeal should provide guidance for the uniform application of R. 334(h) RoP and that the impugned order was erroneous. KEEEX requested dismissal of the request, arguing the impugned order was correct.

On 18 March 2026, the standing judge invited Adobe to indicate whether there remained a legitimate interest in having the case heard, following the Court of Appeal's order of 13 March 2026 in related proceedings (UPC_CoA_922/2025, UPC_CoA_923/2025, UPC_CoA_924/2025, and UPC_CoA_925/2025). Adobe responded that while the Court of Appeal had upheld the defendants' preliminary objection and held that the UPC lacks jurisdiction over the Swiss, Spanish, British, Irish, Norwegian, and Polish parts of the patent, the Court of Appeal had not formally dismissed the claims. Adobe argued it remained relevant to know the consequences of the total absence of factual or legal grounds for a claim, and that the Local Division remained seized of claims for which the UPC had been declared to lack jurisdiction.

On admissibility, the Court of Appeal held that the request was admissible. Although Adobe had requested leave to appeal, the operative part of the impugned order merely contained a general note referring to R. 220.2 RoP, which was not an explicit permission to appeal. The Court cited several precedents (Suinno v. Microsoft, Photon Wave v. Seoul Viosys, Ballinno v. Kinexon, EOFlow v. Insulet, and Adobe v. KEEEX) supporting this interpretation. Therefore, the formal requirements for discretionary review under R. 220.3 RoP were met.

On the merits, the Court of Appeal dismissed the request as unfounded. The Court applied the standard from Motorola v. Ericsson and Centripetal v. Keysight, considering whether the impugned order was manifestly incorrect or raised a fundamental question of law necessary for consistent application of the Rules of Procedure. The Court held that the request had become moot because the fundamental legal question had already been clarified by the Court of Appeal's order of 13 March 2026 in the related proceedings between the same parties concerning the same patent. In those proceedings, the Court of Appeal had ruled that Article 7(2) of Regulation 1215/2012 does not provide jurisdiction for infringement in non-UPC member states. The Court further held that the implications of that order were clear: since the UPC has no jurisdiction, the Court must declare it is not competent to hear the case. The Court found no indication that the Paris Local Division would not apply the Court of Appeal's order, and noted that it would merely be a matter for the Court of First Instance to correctly apply the established case law. The Court also rejected Adobe's argument regarding the need for uniform application of R. 334(h) RoP, finding no evidence that various divisions took fundamentally different approaches or that the Paris Local Division had misunderstood or misapplied the requirements.

The final order, issued on 8 May 2026 by standing judge Ulrike Voß, dismissed the request for discretionary review.