Opens in a new tab

Kinexon Sports & Media v Ballinno (CFI, 21 May 2025)

Date21 May 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionParis (FR) Central Division - Seat
Type of actionRevocation Action
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_230/2024
Registry referenceACT_27358/2024 · ORD_69092/2024 · UPC_CFI_230/2024
PartiesKinexon Sports & Media GmbH v. Ballinno B.V. (defendant) /

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

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

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_230/2024 official number

Follow this case

Parties

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 14 October 2024 Kinexon Sports & Media v Ballinno (CFI, 14 October 2024) Generic application · UPC_CFI_230/2024

    Ballinno doit fournir, au plus tard le 19 février 2025, une garantie pour les frais de Kinexon, fixée dans les motifs à 25 000 euros, en raison d'un risque réel de non-recouvrement.

  2. 21 May 2025 Kinexon Sports & Media v Ballinno (CFI, 21 May 2025) Revocation Action · UPC_CFI_230/2024

What the record states

Nature of the act
Revocation Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La division centrale rectifie d'office le numéro du brevet mentionné dans l'en-tête, en page 2 et au dispositif de sa décision du 30 avril 2025 : EP 1 944 067 B1 au lieu de EP 1 994 067 B1.
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 1 944 067 B1 mentioned in: summary of the decision, Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
  • EP 1 994 067 B1 mentioned in: summary of the decision, Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

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)
Patent at issue according to the summary or official headnote
Also mentioned in 12 other decision(s): 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) · Ballinno v Kinexon Sports & Media (CoA, 26 August 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: summary of the decision, Dhenne Avocats analysis
EP 1 994 067 B1Patent at issue according to the summary or official headnotenot recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
mentioned in: summary of the decision, 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.