Ballinno v Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) (CFI, 15 May 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 14 May 2024 (UPC_CFI_151/2024, ORD_23557/2024, ORD_23558/2024 and ORD_23559/2024), the Hamburg Local Division, seised by Ballinno B.V. with an application for provisional measures against UEFA, Kinexon GmbH and Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH based on EP 1 944 067, ordered Ballinno to provide security of EUR 56,000 for the defendants’ costs within one week, provisionally set the value of the dispute at EUR 500,000 and refused to allocate a technically qualified judge. The order allows security for costs in provisional measures proceedings, including against an applicant established in the EU.

Question

Can security for costs be required, in provisional measures proceedings, from an applicant established in the EU with a share capital of one euro that became proprietor of the patent shortly before bringing proceedings?

Decision

Art. 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158.1 RoP apply to provisional measures under Art. 62 UPCA. The relevant criterion is the applicant’s risk of insolvency, even if it is domiciled in the EU, not merely the risk of enforcement. Ballinno did not show that it could pay the costs. The assignment of the patent on 22 January 2024, months after a warning letter sent by the assignor on 17 October 2023, raises the concern that litigation risk was being shifted, so Ballinno cannot rely on the protection for SMEs. Security, limited to recoverable costs and not possible damages, is set at the EUR 56,000 ceiling corresponding to a value of EUR 500,000, assessed by reference to the claimant’s interest based on a licence fee, rather than the EUR 2,000,000 sought. The panel considers itself able to handle the technical issues without a technically qualified judge, whose allocation would delay the proceedings.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a defendant to provisional measures brought by a company with no known assets that recently acquired the patent can obtain security for costs even if the company is established in the EU, failure to pay exposes the applicant to a decision by default (Rules 158.5 and 355.1(a) RoP).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 62, 69(4) and 73

Rules of Procedure

Rules 158.1, 158.2, 158.5, 211.1(d), 220.2, 264 and 355.1(a)

Case law cited

AIM Sport Vision AG v Supponor Oy, Helsinki Local Division, 20 October 2023 (UPC_CFI_214/2023), Plant-e v Arkyne, The Hague Local Division, 13 February 2024 (UPC_CFI_239/2023)

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.