Kinexon Sports & Media v Ballinno (CFI, 14 October 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 14 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_230/2024, ACT_27358/2024, ORD_47273/2024), the Paris Central Division (F. Thomas, presiding, M. Haedicke, rapporteur, G. Myon) ordered Ballinno, proprietor of EP 1 944 067, to provide security for the costs of Kinexon Sports & Media in the revocation action Kinexon brought after being targeted by an application for provisional measures. The reasons set the security at EUR 25,000 (paragraph 39), an amount redacted in the published operative part.

Question

May the claimant in a revocation action obtain security for costs from the patentee, although Art. 69(4) UPCA refers to security owed by the applicant?

Decision

Rule 158.1 RoP refers to one party and the other party. The division sees no conflict with the UPCA, since a party responding to an application for provisional measures with a revocation action may be treated as a defendant for this purpose (paragraphs 16 to 23). Following the Court of Appeal’s guidelines, the requesting party must show a legitimate concern about recovery of costs, which the other party must then rebut (paragraphs 24 and 25). The bank balance produced by Ballinno is insufficient and no overall picture of its finances is given (paragraphs 26 to 29). Its conditional undertaking not to sue for infringement is irrelevant (paragraphs 30 to 34). Security is due by 19 February 2025, one month before the hearing. Leave to appeal is granted.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a party targeted by provisional measures that counters with a revocation action may seek security for costs from the patentee, provided it shows a concrete risk of non-recovery.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 69(4) and 73

Rules of Procedure

Rules 158, 220.2, 264 and 355.1

Case law cited

Volkswagen v Network System Technologies, Court of Appeal, 17 September 2024, Kinexon Sports & Media v Ballinno, Court of Appeal, 26 August 2024, 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience, Düsseldorf Local Division, 30 April 2024, SWARCO Futurit v Chainzone Technology, Vienna Local Division, 30 July 2024, outside the UPC: CJEU, 22 December 2010, DEB, C-279/09, CJEU, 7 April 2011, Guarnieri, C-291/09

Related decisions

• Kinexon Sports & Media v Ballinno, 30 April 2025, decision on the merits of the revocation action.

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.