Kinexon Sports & Media v Ballinno (CFI, 21 August 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 21 August 2024 (UPC_CFI_230/2024, ACT_27358/2024, ORD_43896/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Central Division (M. Haedicke) dismissed the request of Ballinno, proprietor of EP 1 944 067 and defendant to the revocation action brought by Kinexon Sports & Media, to stay the proceedings until the Court of Appeal rules on the refusal of provisional measures by the Hamburg Local Division on 3 June 2024. Such an appeal does not, as a rule, justify staying the revocation action.

Question

Does an appeal against the refusal of provisional measures justify staying the revocation action on the same patent under Rule 295(m) RoP?

Decision

No. Rule 295(m) RoP must be read in light of the right to an effective remedy and to a hearing within a reasonable time (Art. 6 ECHR, Art. 47 of the Charter) and of Arts. 41(3), 42 and 52(1) UPCA (paragraphs 2 and 3). Proceedings should normally allow the final oral hearing at first instance within one year, so the division will not, as a general principle, stay them (paragraph 4). An appeal against the refusal of provisional measures does not generally justify a stay: otherwise a party could control the timetable by appealing, for an unpredictable period, at the expense of Kinexon’s interest in a timely decision on its freedom to operate (paragraph 5). The request for the costs of the application fails accordingly, leaving open whether Art. 69 UPCA covers such costs (paragraph 6).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a proprietor refused provisional measures cannot rely on its appeal to freeze the revocation action, both sets of proceedings must be run in parallel.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 33(10), 41, 42, 52(1) and 69

Rules of Procedure

Rules 295 and 333, and preamble

European Convention on Human Rights

Art. 6

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Art. 47

Case law cited

Carrier v BITZER Electronics, Court of Appeal, 28 May 2024 (UPC_CoA_22/2024), Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_227/2024

Related decisions

• Ballinno v Kinexon, Court of Appeal, 26 August 2024, security for costs of the appeal on provisional measures.

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.