Short Summary
This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a patent infringement action brought by KEEEX SAS against eight defendants, including Adobe entities, OpenAI entities, TruePic Inc., and others, regarding European Patent EP2949070. The order addresses requests for extension of time limits under Rule 9.3 of the Rules of Procedure, aligning the starting date for all defendants' deadlines to September 4, 2025, and granting an exceptional 4-week extension. The defendants were ordered to file any preliminary objections by November 3, 2025, and their defense submissions by January 2, 2026.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order (ORD_36346/2025) was issued on September 8, 2025, by Judge-Rapporteur Camille Lignières of the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in case UPC_CFI_530/2025.
The underlying action is a patent infringement claim filed by KEEEX SAS (a French company based in Marseille) on June 17, 2025, against eight defendants: Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited, Adobe Inc., Open AI L.P, Open AI OPCO LLC, Open AI Ireland Ltd, TruePic Inc., Joint Development Foundation Projects LLC, and Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA). The patent in suit is European Patent EP2949070, held by KEEEX SAS. The language of the proceedings is French.
Service of the statement of claim was effected through international registered mail (for Irish defendants under Rule 271.4(a)) and under the Hague Convention (for US defendants under Rule 274.1(a)(ii)). Service confirmations occurred between July 21 and August 5, 2025, though some attempts at Open AI entities and C2PA were unsuccessful due to incorrect addresses. The various defense representatives accessed the CMS case file between September 3 and 4, 2025.
The defendants' representatives filed requests for extension of time limits under Rule 9.3, seeking a three-month extension based on: (1) lack of clarity in the plaintiff's interpretation of patent claims and allocation of responsibilities among defendants; (2) the 150-page length of the statement of claim; (3) confusing organization of numerous pieces of evidence in the CMS; and (4) the exceptional amount of damages sought (over 6 billion euros).
KEEEX opposed the three-month extension but agreed to seek determination of damages in a separate proceeding under Rule 125, allowing the current proceedings to focus on the alleged infringement and any validity challenges.
The judge-rapporteur, considering the principles of procedural efficiency and fair trial, the number of pages in the statement of claim, the volume of evidence, the technical complexity of the invention, and the exceptional economic stakes (limited to potential provisional payment since damages would be addressed separately), found it proportionate to grant only a 4-week extension from September 4, 2025, rather than the three months requested.
The court ordered that: (1) the starting date for deadlines under Rules 19 and 23 be aligned to September 4, 2025 for all defendants; (2) an exceptional 4-week extension be granted from September 4, 2025; (3) defendants file any preliminary objections by November 3, 2025, and their defense submissions by January 2, 2026 (accounting for holidays under Rules 300(c) and 301.1); and (4) the order is subject to review under Rule 333.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Paris (FR) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in KEEEX SAS vs Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited, Adobe Inc., Open AI L.P, Open AI OPCO LLC, Open AI Ireland Ltd, TruePic Inc., Joint Development Foundation Projects LLC, and Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA) is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Aesculap AGvsShanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
Aesculap AG sought provisional measures against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1, which relates to a cutting tool for a surgical torque-transmitting instrument. The defendant informed the Registry it would not be represented at the oral hearing and failed to appear, leading the Local Chamber Düsseldorf to decide on the merits as if the defendant had been present. The court granted the application in part, ordering the defendant to cease offering and distributing the infringing products, surrender them to a bailiff, provide detailed information on origin and distribution, and pay provisional costs of EUR 33,335.70.
Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbHvsNetwork System Technologies LLC
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed preliminary objections and requests filed by Volkswagen, Audi, and Texas Instruments against an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST) concerning EP 1 875 683 B1. The defendants challenged the court's jurisdiction, NST's standing, the sufficiency of infringement allegations, and the court's authority over UK-related damages claims. The court dismissed the rule 361 RoP requests and partially dismissed the rule 19 RoP preliminary objections, deferring certain jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc.vsThe Walt Disney Company et al.
InterDigital VC Holdings sued multiple Walt Disney Company entities for alleged direct infringement of European patent EP 2 465 265, which relates to video encoding and decoding technology, targeting the Disney+ streaming service. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Mannheim found infringement of claims 1 and 15, granted injunctive relief, recall/removal orders, information disclosure, and declared the defendants jointly and severally liable for damages, while dismissing the counterclaim for revocation.
Valeo ElectrificationvsMagna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
Valeo Electrification obtained a preliminary injunction from the Düsseldorf Local Division against Magna entities for alleged infringement of EP 3 320 602. Magna appealed the injunction, but before the appeal was heard, Valeo applied to withdraw the action with Magna's consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed, with no cost decision needed.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbHvsMammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sued Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf for infringement of European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1, which protects an avalanche victim search device (LVS) with voice message output during search operations. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. The court found direct and indirect infringement by the accused 'Barryvox S2' device, dismissed the revocation counterclaim, and ordered injunctive relief, recall, destruction, information, and damages, while allocating costs predominantly to the plaintiff.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.