Adobe & Ors v KEEEX (UPC-CoA-95/2026)

• The Court of Appeal dismissed an application for discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP brought by Adobe. It ruled that an order refusing to reject Keeex's application for provisional damages of €120 million was neither manifestly erroneous nor raised any fundamental question of law.
• The underlying infringement action was brought by Keeex, seeking damages of approximately €5.6 billion for financial harm and €1 billion for non-financial harm.
• At the case management conference, Keeex had agreed to seek determination of damages in a separate procedure under Rule 125 RoP, with the order recording that discussion of the financial stakes in the infringement proceedings would be "limited to any possible interim damages request." This wording was then reflected in Adobe's defence and counterclaim. In its reply, Keeex withdrew its damages claim and instead sought an interim award under Rule 119 RoP of €100 million for financial and €20 million for non-financial harm.
• Adobe applied to the judge-rapporteur to declare the interim damages request inadmissible under Rules 13(k) and 263 RoP, or to order its withdrawal under Rule 9.1 RoP, its exclusion from the merits under Rule 334(f) RoP, or its summary rejection under Rule 334(h) RoP. The judge-rapporteur rejected those applications. The panel of the Paris LD upheld the judge-rapporteur's decision and refused leave to appeal. Adobe then applied for discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP.
• In assessing whether to grant discretionary review, the Court of Appeal applied the established test from its own prior case law, including Centripetal v Keysight and Motorola v Ericsson. This requires either that the contested order be manifestly erroneous or that it raises a fundamental question of law necessary to ensure coherent application and interpretation of the Rules of Procedure.
• The court agreed with Keeex that the contested order raised no fundamental question of law, finding that the points raised by Adobe were all linked to the facts of the case and did not bear on the coherent application or interpretation of the Rules of Procedure.
• On the substance, the court addressed each of Adobe's arguments in turn. It was not manifestly erroneous for the Paris LD to find that Keeex's commitment at the case management conference did not constitute a waiver of any financial compensation in the present proceedings. The procedural order had expressly kept open the possibility of an interim damages request, which Adobe had acknowledged in its defence. The fact that the interim claim of €120 million was high in absolute terms did not alter its provisional character or the fact that only a proportion of final damages was being sought. The fact that Keeex referred to the same factual background as the original damages claim to support its application did not transform it into a claim for final damages. Nor was it unreasonable for Keeex to combine the withdrawal of its full damages claim with the introduction of the interim claim in the reply, which was its first submission after the case management conference.

This analysis is based on a machine translation of a decision not available in English.