Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 20 JULY 2026

CoA, July 10, 2026, Request For A Discretionary Review, UPC_CoA_95/2026

Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Contributor
Bardehle Pagenberg

Bardehle Pagenberg

IP practitioners with technical expertise As one of Europe’s leading IP law firms, BARDEHLE...

View firm profile
Explore more from Bardehle Pagenberg

The Court of Appeal examines a request for discretionary review in a patent dispute between Adobe Inc., Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited, and KEEEX SAS concerning European Patent EP 2 949 070. This procedural matter involves multiple rules of procedure including provisions on discretionary review, case management, and appellate processes within the Unified Patent Court framework.

LuxembourgLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Max Link
Max Link
Lisa Fleidl
Lisa Fleidl
Author LinkedIn connections

1. Key takeaways

Discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP requires demonstrating manifest error or a fundamental question of law with systemic implications purely case.

The Court of Appeal confirmed the standard established in earlier decisions: discretionary review is available only where the contested order is manifestly erroneous or raises a fundamental legal question with broader implications for the uniform interpretation of the RoP. Questions tied exclusively to the specific facts of the case do not meet this threshold.

A commitment to withdraw a final damages claim does not preclude a provisional damages claim under R. 119 RoP if the applicable procedural order preserved that option.

The claimant agreed to withdraw its final damages claim and to determine the final amount separately under R. 125 RoP. However, the Procedural Order explicitly preserved the possibility of a provisional damages request, and the defendants had acknowledged this in their own pleadings, such that no broader waiver of all financial relief occurred.

A provisional damages claim first raised in the Reply is not automatically late under R. 9.1 and 13.1(k) RoP.

The Procedural Order expressly required the claimant to formally withdraw its final damages claim in its next pleading (the reply) making it reasonable to simultaneously introduce the provisional claim. The defendants already knew the underlying factual basis and had multiple subsequent opportunities to respond, including in their Rejoinder and, following leave under R. 36 RoP, in further submissions.

No separate formal application under R. 263 RoP was required, as the Procedural Order itself had already authorised the introduction of the provisional damages claim.

2. Division

Court of Appeal

3. UPC number

UPC_CoA_95/2026

4. Type of proceedings

Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)

5. Parties

Applicants (Defendants 1 and 2 at first instance):
Adobe Inc.
Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited

Respondent (Claimant at first instance):
KEEEX SAS

6. Patent(s)

EP 2 949 070

7. Jurisdictions

UPC

8. Body of legislation / Rules

R. 9.1, 13.1(k), 36, 119, 125, 220, 263, 333, 334 RoP

self

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from