Ballinno v UEFA (CFI, 17 September 2024)
| Date | 17 September 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Hamburg (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Application RoP262.1 (b) |
| Registry reference | App_39793/2024 · ORD_40128/2024 |
| Parties | Powell Gilbert LLP |
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.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
By an order of 17 September 2024 (UPC_CFI_151/2024, ACT_16267/2024, ORD_40128/2024 and ORD_52214/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Hamburg Local Division (S. Schilling) granted, in redacted form, the request by the firm Powell Gilbert LLP for access to the pleadings and evidence in the provisional measures proceedings between Ballinno B.V. and UEFA, Kinexon GmbH and Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH concerning EP 1 944 067, and classified the passages highlighted in grey as strictly confidential vis-à-vis the public. The order allows access despite a pending appeal, while protecting the defendants’ technical data.
Question
May a third party obtain access to the pleadings in provisional measures proceedings in order to understand one of the UPC’s first orders in that field, while an appeal is pending?
Decision
A request under Rule 262.1(b) must rest on a credible explanation (paragraph 2). Understanding the order of 3 June 2024, one of the UPC’s first provisional measures decisions, and scrutinising how the court handled the case is a legitimate interest (paragraph 2(a)). A pending appeal does not in principle bar access (paragraph 2(b)). That interest is weighed against those protected by Art. 45 UPCA: it extends to the arguments, not to technical data or internal company information (paragraph 2(c)). A party may seek confidentiality under Rule 262.2 at any stage (paragraph 2(aa)), expert findings on how the sensors and devices work are protected, the redacted versions being enough to follow the arguments (paragraph 2(bb)).
Key points for practice
- Practical point: an interest in understanding a leading decision justifies access to the pleadings, even on appeal, and the party concerned must then secure redaction of its technical information under Rule 262.2.
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Art. 10 and 45
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 262.1, 262.2, 262.3 and 262.4
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: Written procedure (UPC), Confidentiality club.
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
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
Parties
- claimantPowell Gilbert LLP4 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Application RoP262.1 (b)
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- L'accès aux écritures de la procédure de mesures provisoires est accordé en version occultée, l'appel pendant n'y faisant pas obstacle. Les données techniques des défenderesses sont déclarées strictement confidentielles à l'égard du public.
- 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 B1mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 1 944 067 B1Method 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 Kinexon Sports & Media (CoA, 26 August 2024) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet · 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 |
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.