Opens in a new tab

Kinexon Sports & Media v Ballinno (CFI, 16 July 2025)

Date16 July 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionParis (FR) Central Division - Seat
Type of actionApplication RoP262A
Registry referenceApp_25881/2025 · ORD_27316/2025
PartiesBallinno 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.

Contact the firm

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

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
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

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

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 1 944 067 B1
Method 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 recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · 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
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.