Kinexon Sports & Media v Ballinno (CFI, 16 July 2025)
| Date | 16 July 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
| Type of action | Application RoP262A |
| Registry reference | App_25881/2025 · ORD_27316/2025 |
| Parties | Ballinno B.V. v. Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
By order of 16 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_484/2025, ORD_27316/2025), the judge rapporteur Haedicke (Paris Central Division) ruled on the confidentiality of the cost figures contained in the application for a cost decision (Rule 151 RoP) filed by Kinexon after its revocation action against Ballinno concerning EP 1 944 067 (UPC_CFI_230/2024). The order draws a clear line between protection against the opponent and protection against the public.
Question
Does information on a party’s litigation costs justify restricting access by the opponent (Rule 262A RoP) or only by the public (Rule 262.2 RoP)?
Decision
The Rule 262A RoP application is denied: the justification, based on competition between the parties and between their representatives, is too general, the defendant’s right to a fair hearing carries particular weight, the information concerns neither the main subject matter nor Kinexon’s business directly, unlike research or licensing data, and restricting access to a single representative would be unduly burdensome. The implied request under Rule 262.2 RoP is granted, the threshold being lower: the information is not public and has economic value, and the public interest is served by the cost decision itself. Ballinno and its representatives may not bring the content of the application to the attention of third parties.
Key points for practice
- Practical point: a detailed breakdown of costs incurred may be kept from the public, but not from the opponent, who must be able to contest it.
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Art. 58
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 151, 262.2 and 262A
- Case law cited
- FUJIFILM v Kodak, 27 March 2024, Düsseldorf Local Division (UPC_CFI_355/2023), CEAD v BEGO Medical (UPC_CFI_367/2023), Edwards Lifesciences v Meril, Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_815/2024), Insulet v EOFlow, Milan Central Division (UPC_CFI_477/2025)
Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.
Going further
Lexicon: Confidentiality club.
Source and translations
- Official source
- Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
- Original language
- not recorded
- Translation available
- no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
- Date checked
- not recorded
Follow this case
Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.
Proceedings
Parties
- defendantKinexon Sports & Media GmbH13 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantBallinno B.V.8 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Application RoP262A
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La restriction d'accès à l'égard de l'adversaire (règle 262A) est refusée pour les informations sur les frais, mais leur protection à l'égard du public (règle 262.2) est accordée.
- Appeal
- No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
- Instance
- First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.
Patents mentioned
EP 1 944 067 B1mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- FUJIFILM v Kodak (CFI, 27 March 2024) cited in this record
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 1 944 067 B1Method and system for detecting an offside situation recorded proprietor: INVIT BV (changement de titulaire en 2024 vers BALLINNO B.V. selon les événements juridiques affichés) | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 12 other decision(s): Kinexon Sports & Media v Ballinno (CFI, 21 May 2025) · Kinexon Sports & Media v Ballinno (CFI, 21 August 2025) · Ballinno v Kinexon Sports & Media (CoA, 15 August 2025) · Ballinno v Kinexon (CoA, 26 June 2025) · Ballinno v Kinexon Sports & Media (CoA, 12 May 2025) · Kinexon Sports & Media v Ballinno (CFI, 14 October 2024) · Ballinno v UEFA (CFI, 17 September 2024) · Ballinno v Kinexon Sports & Media (CoA, 26 August 2024) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet · European Patent Register existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically) mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
Receive an alert
Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.