Short Summary
Ballinno B.V. had been ordered by the Court of Appeal to provide security of €25,000 for the legal costs of the Kinexon companies and UEFA in appeal proceedings concerning EP 1 944 067. After the appeal was adjudicated and the parties entered into a settlement agreement, Kinexon requested release of the security and transfer to its bank account, with consent from both Ballinno and UEFA. The Court of Appeal ordered the release and full transfer of the €25,000 deposit to Kinexon Sports GmbH.
Detailed Summary
This order concerns an application for the release of security for procedural costs in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, involving patent EP 1 944 067.
Ballinno B.V., based in Obdam, The Netherlands, had applied for preliminary measures before the Court of First Instance, Hamburg Local Division, against Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), and Kinexon GmbH. In the appeal proceedings, the Court of Appeal ordered Ballinno on 26 August 2024 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 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 Court of Appeal to release the security for procedural costs and transfer it directly 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, reiterating its request for release. UEFA also confirmed that it accepted the requested release of the security to Kinexon.
The Court of Appeal, presided over by legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur Ingeborg Simonsson, applied Rule 352.2 of the Rules of Procedure by analogy. While that provision governs the release of security for enforcement, the Court found it applicable by analogy given the conclusion of the proceedings and the settlement between the parties.
The Court ordered that the €25,000 deposited by Ballinno on 30 August 2024 be released and transferred in full to the Kinexon Sports GmbH bank account specified in Kinexon's request, and directed the Registry to ensure 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 Ballinno B.V. vs Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), and Kinexon GmbH is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Ona Patents SLvsApple Inc. and Others
Ona Patents SL filed a patent infringement action against several Apple entities regarding EP 2 263 098 B1, and the Apple defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. Prior to the closure of written proceedings, Ona Patents withdrew its infringement action, and the defendants agreed to the withdrawal. The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered a 40% reimbursement of court fees to the claimant and released the security for costs previously provided by the claimant.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.vsChint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. and Others
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court granted JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.'s application for leave to change its claims in an infringement action concerning EP 2 787 541. The court allowed the patentee to amend its infringement claims to align with auxiliary requests filed under Rule 30 RoP in response to the defendants' counterclaim for revocation, to incorporate amendments made by the EPO Opposition Division to claim 13, and to add a new allegedly infringing embodiment (ASTRO N8 Bifacial Series) that came to light after the original filing.
10x Genomics, Inc.vsCurio Bioscience Inc.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.vsAiko Energy Germany GmbH & Others
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A RoP in infringement and counterclaim for revocation proceedings relating to European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1. The court amended its prior order of 23 December 2024 to add three named individuals to the group of persons authorized to access confidential information, while rejecting the request to grant a fourth individual (Ms. [...]) separate access.
Nicoventures Trading Limited – Request for Access to Written Pleadings and Evidence (UPC_CoA_5/2025, APL_289/2025)vsEx Parte
Nicoventures Trading Limited requested immediate access to written pleadings and evidence in an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 498 115, citing its direct interest as a party to parallel EPO opposition appeal proceedings against the same patent. Juul Labs and NJOY objected, arguing the request was overly broad and risked undermining confidentiality. The Court of Appeal granted access to the specifically identified documents already in the casefile, subject to redaction of personal data and a condition prohibiting Nicoventures from filing or distributing the pleadings with other courts until the appeal is closed, while dismissing the remainder of the request.
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.