Ballinno v UEFA (CFI, 3 June 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 3 June 2024 (UPC_CFI_151/2024, ORD_33145/2024), the Hamburg Local Division dismissed Ballinno B.V.’s application for provisional measures based on EP 1 944 067 B1, which concerns offside detection, against the Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon GmbH and Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, directed at the « Connected Ball Technology » to be used at UEFA EURO 2024. The dismissal rests on two independent grounds: lack of urgency and lack of sufficient certainty of infringement.

The order is useful for its strict approach to urgency: a proprietor aware of the alleged infringement must actively investigate it, a small undertaking cannot rely on its limited resources, and instructing an expert late does not revive urgency.

Facts and procedure

The patent, acquired by Ballinno from Invit B.V. on 22 January 2024, protects a method (claim 1) and a system (claim 8) detecting a player’s contact with the ball by sensing a sound, compared with a predetermined signal, in order to emit a signal perceptible to the referee. Invit learned of the technology around September 2023 and sent a warning letter in October 2023, the Kinexon companies denied infringement in November 2023. Informed on 4 December 2023 of UEFA’s planned use, Invit sent a second warning letter on 26 February 2024, without contacting UEFA. A protective letter had been filed on 4 March 2024 and the application was lodged on 18 April 2024. A revocation action is pending before the Paris Central Division (UPC_CFI_230/2024).

The defendants sought dismissal or, in the alternative, security of at least EUR 1,000,000. A late offer of evidence by the applicant was admitted under Rule 210.2 RoP, as it concerned material already produced by the other side.

The applicable law

Provisional measures require sufficient certainty that the applicant is entitled to commence proceedings and that the patent is infringed (Art. 62 UPCA, Rule 211.2 RoP), applying the standard of preponderant likelihood adopted by the Court of Appeal on 26 February 2024. Urgency is assessed under Rule 209.2(b) RoP. Claims are construed under Art. 69 EPC and its Protocol on Interpretation.

Question

Can a proprietor that was slow to investigate the alleged infringement establish urgency, and does a ball detecting contact by measuring acceleration reproduce, literally or by equivalence, a method based on sensing sound waves?

Decision

Urgency was found lacking (part III). Once aware of the alleged infringement, the applicant must investigate it and apply to the court within about one month of having the necessary information. A period of almost three months without significant efforts is too long: the applicant neither tried to identify the accelerometer model nor obtained a ball, the limited resources of a small enterprise are irrelevant, and instructing an expert later does not revive urgency.

Nor was infringement shown (part IV). Feature 1.2 requires sensing acoustic sound waves in air and feature 1.3 a sound signal of the same kind. The patent does not disclose the use of support vector machines. Leaving open whether the accelerometer can sense sound, the division found no evidence of any comparison of sound waves, the defendants having made it credible that the technology relies on a change in the ball’s kinetic state. Equivalence was rejected, as the technology does not use the same technical effect. Validity, UEFA’s liability and the balance of interests were left open. The applicant bears the costs, including those of the protective letter (Art. 69(1) UPCA), and the value of the dispute was set at EUR 500,000.

Key points for practice

• The roughly one-month period for applying runs from when the proprietor has the necessary information, which requires active investigation of the alleged infringement.
• The applicant’s size or limited means do not lessen the duty of diligence.
• The costs of a protective letter form part of the costs borne by an unsuccessful applicant.
• Practical point: ahead of any targeted event, the proprietor should promptly obtain the accused product and establish how it works technically, or the application will fail on urgency as well as on proof.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 47(1), 62, 63 and 69(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 8.5, 118.7, 209, 210.2, 211 and 213.2

European Patent Convention

Art. 69 and Protocol on its Interpretation

Case law cited

10x Genomics v Nanostring, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024 (UPC_CoA_335/2023), 10x Genomics v Nanostring, Munich Local Division, 19 September 2023 (UPC_CFI_2/2023), 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience, Düsseldorf Local Division, 30 April 2024 (UPC_CFI_463/2023), Düsseldorf Local Division, 9 April 2024 (UPC_CFI_452/2023)

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.