2026-07-20 - LD Paris - KEEEX v. Adobe et al. - UPC_CFI_530/2025

Whilst account should be taken, in view of the value of the dispute stated by the claimant and which has not yet been set by the judge rapporteur, the recommended ceiling set out in the Administrative Committee’s Decision ‘Setting of Ceilings for Recoverable Costs’ of 24 April 2023; nevertheless, the determination of the amount of the security for costs cannot be limited to the automatic application of a percentage based on that ceiling. Moreover, the UPC CoA expressly stated that the SME status of the party required to provide security under Rule 158 RoP could be taken into account. This is entirely justified in light of the spirit of the texts governing the UPC (see recital 2 of the UPCA). In accordance with the principles of a fair trial and proportionality, the specific circumstances of the case must be taken into account, in particular the fact that the claimant is a small micro-enterprise entitled to effective access to justice before the UPC, as well as the synergy amongst all the defendants.

The Paris Local Division ruled on an application by one defendant group to increase a security for costs already fixed under R. 158 RoP by a final order, holding first that such an application is admissible at any time under R. 158.1 RoP, but that a modification requires developments that are both new and unforeseeable — the assessment made in the original order is not reopened. Of the developments relied on, the revocation counterclaim and the patentee's responsive application to amend were held to be ordinary features of this type of litigation rather than markers of exceptional complexity, and the applicant could not in good faith invoke a proliferation of applications and appeals that was attributable to its own procedural initiative; nor is the claimant to bear, through security, the cost impact of a counterclaim brought by the defendants themselves. Only the claimant's late claim for EUR 120 million in provisional damages under R. 119 RoP qualified, because it necessarily obliged the defendants to develop additional defence arguments and was attributable to the claimant. On quantum, the judge-rapporteur applied the Court of Appeal's framework — the Annex A ceiling of the Administrative Committee's Decision of 24 April 2023 as the starting point, weighted by all relevant circumstances — while rejecting any automatic application of that ceiling or of the 50%-of-ceiling practice adopted by several divisions, and expressly weighing the claimant's micro-enterprise status, the synergy between four defence teams, and the Art. 47 Charter guarantee of effective access to justice. The increase was set at 50% of the amount already ordered, namely EUR 100,000.