Opens in a new tab

Ballinno v Kinexon Sports & Media (CoA, 26 August 2024)

Date26 August 2024
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionGeneric application
Registry referenceApp_45255/2024 · ORD_45561/2024
PartiesKinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)

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 26 August 2024 (UPC_CoA_328/2024, APL_36389/2024, App_45255/2024), the Court of Appeal (Kalden, Simonsson, Rombach, Faget, Papa) ordered Ballinno, appellant against orders of the Hamburg Local Division dismissing its application for provisional measures on EP 1 944 067, to provide security of EUR 25,000 for the costs of Kinexon Sports & Media, Kinexon and UEFA. The order accepts a request for security made at the appeal stage.

Question

May a party ask the Court of Appeal for security for the costs of the appeal, where security had already been ordered at first instance?

Decision

Yes. Art. 69(4) UPCA, which also applies to provisional measures, is not confined to first instance (paragraphs 23 to 25). Rule 158 RoP allows a reasoned request at any time during proceedings, and its place in Part 1 of the Rules is not decisive (paragraphs 26 to 29). Under Rule 222.2(a) RoP, the request could not reasonably have been made before the division, which cannot know whether an appeal will follow, and the ceiling on recoverable costs applies per instance (paragraphs 30 to 34). Security does not impair access to justice (paragraph 35). As Ballinno did not explain its overall finances beyond a bank balance of EUR 101,907.64, a risk of non-recovery is established (paragraphs 36 to 38). Given the narrower scope of the appeal, security is set at EUR 25,000, to be provided within two weeks by deposit or bank guarantee, failing which a default decision may follow (paragraphs 40 to 42).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Arts. 62, 69(4) and 73
Rules of Procedure
Rules 158, 220.2, 222.2 and 355
Administrative Committee decision on the scale of ceilings
Art. 1(3)

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: UPC Court of Appeal.

Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.

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
Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
Ballinno doit fournir sous deux semaines une garantie de 25 000 euros pour les frais d'appel des sociétés Kinexon et de l'UEFA, une telle demande étant recevable devant la cour d'appel.
Appeal
Decision of the Court of Appeal.
Instance
Court of Appeal decision.

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