2026-07-29 - LD Paris - KEEEX v. Adobe et al. - UPC_CFI_530/2025

Sitting in plenary, the Paris Local Division rejected both parties' applications under R. 333 RoP to review the judge-rapporteur's order of 25 June 2026 on the admissibility of the claimant's brief of 5 June 2026. On the refusal of a later application to amend the patent under R. 30.2 RoP it applied the Court of Appeal's framework in Meril v Edwards: a subsequent amendment is admissible only in exceptional circumstances, on two cumulative conditions — that the amendment could not have been made with reasonable diligence earlier, and that it does not unreasonably hinder the other party — and the wish to answer the defendants' criticisms of the initial R. 30.1 RoP amendment is not such a circumstance. It added that a party which says those criticisms lack any legal basis should say so, which shows the further amendment had no use, and that a defendant to a R. 30.1 RoP amendment may properly cite prior art adapted to the amended claims. It confirmed that adding new products to the infringement claim was an inadmissible change of claim under R. 263.2 RoP because the bailiff's report filed with the statement of claim already contained the material, and that the R. 29(e) RoP brief is confined, on validity, to answering the revocation counterclaim reply, because the defendant has the last word on infringement. It held that the exclusions under R. 9.2 RoP rested on an element-by-element examination against procedural efficiency and the adversarial principle, not on a mechanical application of the procedural flows.