Short Summary
This case concerns an application for the release of security for procedural costs in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal. Ballinno B.V. had been ordered on 26 August 2024 to provide €25,000 in security for the legal costs of the Kinexon companies and UEFA, which it duly provided. Following the adjudication of the appeal on 26 June 2025 and the parties' subsequent settlement agreement, Kinexon requested release of the security with the consent of Ballinno and UEFA. The Court of Appeal ordered the full release and transfer of the €25,000 deposit to Kinexon Sports GmbH's bank account.
Detailed Summary
This matter arose from appeal proceedings concerning European Patent EP 1 944 067. The appellant and applicant before the Court of First Instance was Ballinno B.V., a company based in Obdam, The Netherlands, represented by attorneys from Vossius & Brinkhof. The respondents were Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH and Kinexon GmbH (jointly referred to as the Kinexon companies), both based in Munich, Germany, and the Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), based in Nyon, Switzerland. The respondents were represented by attorneys from Bardehle Pagenberg. Ballinno had originally applied for preliminary measures before the Court of First Instance, Hamburg Local Division.
The dispute before the Court of Appeal concerned the release of security for procedural costs. On 26 August 2024, the Court of Appeal had ordered Ballinno to provide security for the legal costs of the Kinexon companies and UEFA in the total amount of €25,000. Ballinno duly provided this security on 30 August 2024. The appeal itself was adjudicated by order issued on 26 June 2025. Subsequently, on 5 August 2025, the Kinexon companies informed the Court that the parties had entered into a settlement agreement and requested the release of the €25,000 security and its direct transfer to the bank account of Kinexon Sports GmbH. Ballinno agreed to the release and confirmed that the security should be transferred to Kinexon's account, while UEFA confirmed its acceptance of the requested release to Kinexon.
& Analysis: The deciding judge, Ingeborg Simonsson, acting as legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur, applied Rule 352.2 of the Rules of Procedure, which provides that the Court may, upon the application of a party, release a security by order. While this provision applies to security for enforcement, the Court found it should be applied by way of analogy in the present case. The Court identified a reason to do so given the conclusion of the proceedings and the settlement reached between the parties. All parties consented to the release and transfer of the security.
Final Order & Ruling: The Court of Appeal ordered that the amount deposited by Ballinno at the Court of Appeal's bank account on 30 August 2024, pursuant to the order of 26 August 2024, shall be released and transferred in full to the Kinexon Sports GmbH bank account specified in Kinexon's request. The Registry was directed to ensure that the bank transfer was made. The order was issued on 15 August 2025.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon GmbH, Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH vs Respondent is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG, vertreten durch ihre Geschäftsführer, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Clemens Tobias Steins, Patentanwalt und EurvsInventronics GmbH, vertreten durch die Geschäftsführer Dr. G, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Dirk Jestaedt, Krieger Mes Partnerschaft mb
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by Tridonic GmbH & Co KG against Inventronics GmbH regarding European Patent No. 2 011 218 B1. Before the written procedure was completed, the plaintiff withdrew the action with the defendant's consent, following out-of-court settlement discussions. The court allowed the withdrawal, reduced the value of the dispute from EUR 1,000,000 to EUR 300,000, and ordered a partial reimbursement of court fees to the plaintiff in the amount of EUR 9,500.00.
Curio Bioscience, Incvs10x Genomics, Inc.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of an appeal. Curio Bioscience, Inc. had appealed an order of the Düsseldorf Local Division requiring it to provide security for legal costs of EUR 200,000 in favor of 10x Genomics, Inc. in connection with a patent infringement action regarding EP 2 697 391. Curio subsequently applied to withdraw its appeal, and 10x did not object, leading the Court of Appeal to permit the withdrawal and close the proceedings.
Cardo Systems, Ltd.vsShenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., Ltd.and Resosport Limited
Cardo Systems, proprietor of EP 4 240 194 B1 relating to fastening devices for head-protective gear, obtained an ex parte injunction and seizure order against Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology and Resosport Limited on 5 November 2025 during the EICMA motorcycle trade fair in Milan. The respondents applied for review of the order, challenging validity, infringement, and the balance of interests. The Milan Local Division revoked the provisional measures in their entirety, finding no infringement, no urgency, and that Cardo had breached its duty of candour, while ordering Cardo to pay EUR 28,000 in interim costs and partially releasing the security deposit.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd.vsSovex Systems B.V. et. al.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. initiated a patent infringement action before the Local Division Mannheim against seven defendants concerning EP 2 563 695 B1. The defendants filed a preliminary objection challenging international jurisdiction over Hemtech (domiciled in Bosnia and Herzegovina), competence over five Dutch defendants, and the competence of the Mannheim division, seeking transfer to The Hague. The court rejected all preliminary objections, finding that international jurisdiction and competence were properly established, and declined to grant leave to appeal.
Nokia Solutions and Networks OyvsZhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. et. al.
This is an order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim on November 3, 2025, in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 799 333. The plaintiff, Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy, brought the action against numerous defendants affiliated with the Geely automotive group, including entities related to Lynk & Co, Zeekr, Lotus, and smart brands. The case involves an opposition under Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure, and the order was issued by the Rapporteur Judge Sender.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.