2026-04-30 - CoA - Adobe et al. v. KEEEX - UPC-COA-0000001/2026

Was ist diese UPC-Entscheidung?

Zusammenfassung: The Court of Appeal dismissed Adobe's appeal against the Paris Local Division's security-for-costs order of 19 December 2025 (50,000 EUR bank guarantee) as wholly inadmissible for want of express leave to appeal under Rule 220.2 RoP, consolidating its established line of authority that security-for-costs orders under Rule 158 RoP fall within Rule 220.2 RoP — which requires express leave from the first-instance court — and not within Rule 220.1 RoP. The Paris LD had erroneously referenced Rule 220.1 in its dispositif, but a mere mention of the appeal regime in the order is information, not a grant of leave (citing Suinno/Microsoft, Photon Wave/Seoul Viosys, Ballinno/Kinexon, EOFlow/Insulet). The Court refused any excusable-error exception (AIM/Supponor distinguished) because Adobe itself acknowledged in its grounds of appeal that R. 220.1 was an erroneous reference and that R. 220.2 applied — having identified the error within the 15-day deadline, Adobe could and should have sought leave from the Paris LD; the Court likewise declined restitutio in integrum under Rule 320 RoP and a stay/return-to-LD remedy. By way of obiter, the panel reiterated that the relative financial position of the parties is not a Rule 158 RoP criterion (Audi/NST), and recalled the Cost-Cap Scale of 24 April 2023 (2,000,000 EUR cap for litigation values exceeding 50,000,000 EUR), to be weighted by case-specific circumstances such as the claimant's SME status and possible synergies among multiple defence teams.

Quelle und Fundstellen

Quelle: UPC Website

Aktenzeichen: UPC-COA-0000001/2026