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
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
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.