AIM Sport Vision v Supponor (CFI, ORD_567559/2023, 28 August 2023)

Date	28 August 2023
Court	CFI
Division	Helsinki (FI) Local Division
Type of action	Procedural Order
Case number(s)	UPC_CFI_214/2023
Registry reference	ORD_567559/2023 · UPC_CFI_214/2023
Parties	AIM Sport Vision AG v. Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited, Supponor SASU, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor España SL

Summary pending review. Official UPC registry metadata imported on 24 September 2026.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

17 July 2023 : AIM Sport Vision v Supponor (CFI, 17 July 2023) ORD_551054/2023 · UPC_CFI_214/2023
28 August 2023 : AIM Sport Vision v Supponor (CFI, ORD_567421/2023, 28 August 2023) ORD_567421/2023 · UPC_CFI_214/2023
28 August 2023 : AIM Sport Vision v Supponor (CFI, ORD_567563/2023, 28 August 2023) ACT_545571/2023 · ORD_567563/2023 · UPC_CFI_214/2023
20 October 2023 : AIM Sport Vision v Supponor (CFI, 20 October 2023) ACT_545571/2023and · ACT_551054/2023 · ORD_572699/2023and · ORD_581208/2023 · UPC_CFI_214/2023
29 April 2026 : AIM Sport Development v TGI Sport Suomi (CFI, UPC_CFI_214/2023, 29 April 2026) UPC_CFI_214/2023

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

English summary awaiting review. Read the French case note.

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

UPC_CFI_214/2023 official number

Follow this case

Parties

defendantSupponor Italia SRL8 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantSupponor Limited8 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantSupponor España SL8 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantSupponor Oy10 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantSupponor SASU8 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantAIM Sport Vision AG5 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

17 July 2023 AIM Sport Vision v Supponor (CFI, 17 July 2023) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_214/2023
Les défenderesses sont invitées à former opposition à la demande de mesures provisoires au plus tard le 21 août 2023, en même temps que leurs éventuelles exceptions préliminaires.
28 August 2023 AIM Sport Vision v Supponor (CFI, ORD_567421/2023, 28 August 2023) Procedural Order · UPC_CFI_214/2023
28 August 2023 AIM Sport Vision v Supponor (CFI, ORD_567559/2023, 28 August 2023) Procedural Order · UPC_CFI_214/2023
28 August 2023 AIM Sport Vision v Supponor (CFI, ORD_567563/2023, 28 August 2023) Procedural Order · UPC_CFI_214/2023
20 October 2023 AIM Sport Vision v Supponor (CFI, 20 October 2023) Preliminary objection · UPC_CFI_214/2023
29 April 2026 AIM Sport Development v TGI Sport Suomi (CFI, UPC_CFI_214/2023, 29 April 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_214/2023
La division rejette la demande reconventionnelle en nullité et maintient le brevet tel que délivré, mais rejette aussi l’action en contrefaçon, le système SVB ne reproduisant la caractéristique 12.5 ni littéralement ni par équivalence.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Procedural Order
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Le juge rapporteur fixe des mémoires complémentaires aux 4 et 11 septembre 2023 et convoque une audience publique commune au référé et à l'exception préliminaire le 21 septembre 2023.
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 3 295 663 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

AIM Sport Development v TGI Sport Suomi (CFI, UPC_CFI_214/2023, 29 April 2026) cited in this record
AIM Sport Vision v Supponor (CFI, 20 October 2023) cited in this record
AIM Sport Vision v Supponor (CFI, ORD_567421/2023, 28 August 2023) cited in this record
AIM Sport Vision v Supponor (CFI, ORD_567563/2023, 28 August 2023) cited in this record
AIM Sport Vision v Supponor (CFI, 17 July 2023) cited in this record

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

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 3 295 663` Digitally overlaying an image with another image recorded proprietor: Aim Sport Vision AG	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 9 other decision(s): AIM Sport Development v TGI Sport Suomi (CoA, 16 July 2026) · AIM Sport Development v TGI Sport Suomi (CoA, 8 July 2026) · AIM Sport Development v TGI Sport Suomi (CFI, ACT_551054/2023, 29 Apri · AIM Sport Development v TGI Sport Suomi (CFI, UPC_CFI_214/2023, 29 Apr · AIM Sport Development v TGI Sport Suomi (CFI, 10 February 2025) · AIM Sport Development v Supponor (CoA, ORD_598488/2023, 12 November 20 · AIM Sport Development v Supponor Italia (CoA, 26 April 2024) · AIM Sport Development v Supponor (CoA, 26 February 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

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.