Short Summary
This appeal concerned an order for security for costs and the disposal of an action that had become devoid of purpose. Ballinno B.V., the proprietor of European patent EP 1 944 067 relating to a method and system for detecting an offside situation, had applied for provisional measures against the Kinexon companies and UEFA before the Hamburg Local Division. After withdrawing its requests for provisional measures on appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the action had become devoid of purpose and disposed of it pursuant to R. 360 RoP, treating Ballinno as the unsuccessful party at both instances.
Detailed Summary
Ballinno B.V., a company based in Obdam, The Netherlands, was the proprietor of European patent EP 1 944 067, entitled "Method and system for detecting an offside situation." Ballinno applied for provisional measures—including injunctions, seizure of goods, and penalties—before the Court of First Instance (CFI), Hamburg Local Division, against Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH (jointly the Kinexon companies), and the Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA). The respondents were represented by Prof. Dr. Tilman Müller-Stoy of Bardehle Pagenberg, while Ballinno was represented by attorney-at-law Rien Broekstra of Vossius & Brinkhof.
The Kinexon companies and UEFA requested an order requiring Ballinno to provide security for costs. The Local Division ordered Ballinno to provide security for the legal costs of the defendants in the total amount of €56,000, by deposit or bank guarantee, in an order dated 14 May 2024 (the security order). According to the Local Division's findings, the undisputed facts indicated a risk of insolvency of Ballinno with respect to reimbursement of the costs of proceedings. The Local Division noted that the patent in suit had been only recently assigned to Ballinno, and that the transfer was performed months after the assignor had entered into pre-trial correspondence about a possible patent infringement with two of the defendants. This raised concerns that the purpose of the transfer might be to facilitate litigation without any financial risk to Ballinno. The patent was transferred on 22 January 2024, shortly before Ballinno initiated proceedings on 18 April 2024. The Local Division weighed the interests of the defendants higher than those of Ballinno.
& Analysis
On appeal, Ballinno withdrew its requests for provisional measures (injunctions, seizure of goods, and penalties). The Court of Appeal determined that, as a result of this withdrawal, the action had become devoid of purpose so that there was no longer any need to adjudicate on it. The Court of Appeal held that it could dispose of the action pursuant to R. 360 RoP. The Court further held that it was not necessary to examine the merits of the case in order to determine which party was the successful party. Ballinno was considered the unsuccessful party at both instances.
Final Order & Ruling
The Court of Appeal disposed of the action pursuant to R. 360 RoP, as the action had become devoid of purpose following Ballinno's withdrawal of its requests for provisional measures on appeal. Ballinno was treated as the unsuccessful party at both the first instance and on appeal. The order was issued by Panel 2, comprising presiding judge Rian Kalden, judge-rapporteur Ingeborg Simonsson, Patricia Rombach, Guillaume Faget, and Elisabetta Papa, following an oral hearing on 24 February 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 GmbH, Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Edwards Lifesciences CorporationvsMeril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns European patent EP 3 646 825 and addresses procedural matters related to Edwards's application for a cost decision and competing confidentiality applications under Rule 262A RoP. The court indicated its intention to follow the reasoning of the Central Division (Paris Seat) order of 30 July 2024, which would grant Meril unlimited access to the costs application while restricting third-party/public access under Rule 262.2 RoP. Edwards was invited to comment within 10 days on the confidentiality applications before the court would invite Meril to comment on the costs application.
Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.vsAlexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
This case concerns Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.'s withdrawal of its applications for leave to appeal cost decisions issued by the Hamburg Local Division in proceedings involving EP 3 167 888. Alexion's provisional measures applications had been dismissed with costs orders against it, and Samsung's subsequent cost decision applications were found only partially justified. With Alexion's consent and both parties waiving costs, the Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and closed the proceedings.
Fujifilm CorporationvsRespondent
This enforcement proceeding arose from a decision of 2 April 2025 in UPC_CFI_365/2023 concerning European patent EP 3 511 174, in which FUJIFILM sought to enforce operative parts requiring the Kodak defendants to provide information, destroy infringing embodiments, recall products, and remove them from channels of commerce. The Mannheim Local Division found that the defendants had failed to comply with these obligations despite proper notification and service, rejecting the defendants' arguments regarding lack of warning and insufficient translations. The court imposed a three-pronged penalty regime including a lump-sum payment of €100,000, daily penalties of €2,500 until 4 August 2025, and escalated penalties of €10,000 per day thereafter.
SharkNinja Operating LLCvsGroupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS), Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
This case arose from SharkNinja's appeal of a Paris Local Division decision dismissing its application for provisional measures against SEB concerning EP 3 689 198. SharkNinja filed a request under R. 262A RoP to protect certain commercial market data as confidential, while SEB raised procedural objections regarding unsigned filings and requested extensions of time. The Court of Appeal addressed issues of electronic signature requirements under R. 4.1 RoP, retroactive extension of time periods under R. 9.3(a) RoP, and the scope of confidentiality protection, ultimately granting partial confidentiality protection with access limited to four named SEB employees.
Sanofi A/S, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi AB, Sanofi Mature IPvsDr Reddy's Srl, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Reddy Pharma SAS
Procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning four consolidated infringement actions relating to European patent n° 2 493 466. The order, issued following the second interim conference, addresses the status of the EPO Board of Appeal decision, expert testimony arrangements, the schedule for the oral hearing scheduled for 14–17 October 2025, and various evidentiary rulings including the rejection of a late-filed affidavit by Zentiva.
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.