This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2026 WIPO IP Judges Forum.
Session 8: Cross-border Aspects of IP Disputes
Court of Appeal, Unified Patent Court [2026]: Adobe Inc. et al. v Keeex SAS, UPC-CoA-922/2025, UPC-CoA-923/2025, UPC-CoA-924/2025, UPC-CoA-925/2025
Date of judgment: March 13, 2026
Issuing authority: Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court
Level of the issuing authority: Final Instance
Type of procedure: Judicial (Civil)
Subject matter: Patents (Inventions)
Plaintiff/Appellant: Adobe Inc.; Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited; OpenAI LP; OpenAI OpCo LLC; OpenAI Ireland Ltd; Truepic Inc.; Joint Development Foundation Projects LLC; Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity
Defendant/Respondent: Keeex SAS
Keywords: International jurisdiction of the unified patent court (UPC); Verification of jurisdiction
Basic facts: Keeex SAS enforces its European patent EP 2 949 070 against Adobe Inc. et al. and asks the Unified Patent Court (UPC) to issue an injunction and additional orders against alleged infringements committed by Adobe Inc. et al. in the UPC territory and various non-UPC countries (Switzerland, Spain, United Kingdom, Ireland, Norway and Poland). Adobe Inc. et al. contest the jurisdiction of the UPC in relation to the non-UPC countries.
Held: The Court of Appeal declares that the UPC does not have jurisdiction in this case to rule on the alleged infringement of the Swiss, Spanish, British, Irish, Norwegian and Polish parts of patent EP 2 949 070 by Adobe Inc. et al.
Relevant holdings in relation to cross-border aspects of IP disputes:
Where the UPC has jurisdiction on the basis of Article 7(2) of Regulation 1215/2012 as the court of the place where the damages occurred or threatened to occur, said article does not provide jurisdiction for infringement in non-member states of the UPC.
As a rule, the Statement of claim should contain the facts and legal arguments necessary to justify the jurisdiction of the Court. In the absence of such facts and legal arguments to establish jurisdiction on the basis of Article 71b(3) of Regulation 1215/2012, the Court cannot derive jurisdiction from that provision.
The Court of Appeal referred to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v Electrolux AB, C-339-22 (February 25, 2025), in considering the UPC’s jurisdiction under Regulation 1215/2012
Relevant legislation:
Articles 71a-71d and 7(2) of the Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters