UPClytics
DeutschEnglish
AnmeldenRegistrieren
Alle Fälle anzeigen

ACT 16267/2024

—·EP1944067: Method and system for detecting an offside situation

Verfahrensdetails
Status
—
Verfahrensart
Einstweilige Verfügung
Kategorie
Einstweilige Maßnahmen
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter: Rien Broekstra
Division
Hamburg LD
Richter
Sprache
—
Erste Entscheidung
3. Juni 2024
Entscheidungen
  • 2024-06-03
    PI abgelehntEinstweilige VerfügungApplication for provisional measures

    Hamburg Local Division dismissed Ballinno B.V.'s application for provisional measures (preliminary injunction) against UEFA, Kinexon GmbH and Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH in connection with EP 1 944 067 (method for detecting offside situations in football). The application was dismissed on urgency grounds: Ballinno had waited almost three months after acquiring knowledge of the alleged infringement before taking decisive investigative steps, which was incompatible with the urgency requirement under Art. 62(2) UPCA. Ballinno was ordered to pay costs including those of the protective letter.

    Rechtsfragen:Urgency requirement for provisional measures under Art. 62(2) UPCA and Rule 209(2)(b) RoPDegree of certainty of infringement under Art. 62(4) UPCAVAR (Video Assistant Referee) technologyCosts of protective letter
Dokumente
  • EBC48C668C2A67842ABE7BBFF9505D7E_en.pdf2024-06-03EN
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Ballinno B.V. applied for a preliminary injunction before the Hamburg Local Division against UEFA, Kinexon GmbH, and Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH concerning EP 1 944 067 (a method for detecting offside situations in football using ball-contact sensing). The application was dismissed primarily on urgency grounds — Ballinno waited nearly three months after learning of the alleged infringement before taking decisive investigative steps. On the merits, the court also found no credible infringement: the defendants' Connected Ball Technology uses SVM-processed accelerometer data, not sound-signal sensing and comparison as claimed, and acceleration measurement was not established as an equivalent.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Application dismissed for lack of urgency — applicant waited almost three months after acquiring knowledge of alleged infringement before taking decisive investigative steps

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 62(2) UPCA; Rule 209(2)(b) RoP; Rule 211(3) RoP

    Hinweis: Hamburg LD confirmed that once a patent proprietor has knowledge of alleged infringement, it must investigate promptly; a delay of nearly three months without significant clarification efforts is incompatible with urgency.

  • Connected Ball Technology uses accelerometer-based SVM processing, not sound-signal sensing and comparison as claimed

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 62(4) UPCA; Rule 211.2 RoP

    Hinweis: Court found it could not conclude that the attacked embodiment compares sensed signals to training data of predetermined signals as claimed; SVM does not contain training data, and accelerometer data is fundamentally different from sound signals.

  • Acceleration measurement is not an equivalent to sensing a sound signal produced by the ball

    Beklagter

    Hinweis: Description at [0037] discloses acceleration as an additional measurement, not an equivalent alternative to sound sensing; the patent does not teach substituting acceleration for sound.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • Connected Ball Technology infringes the patent by using sensor data to determine ball contact

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 62(4) UPCA

    Begründung: Claimant could not prove the embodiment processes sound signals or compares them to predetermined sound signals; the SVM uses accelerometer data, not sound signals, and does not retain training data for comparison.

  • Infringement by equivalents — accelerometer processing equivalent to sound-signal comparison

    Kläger

    Begründung: For equivalence, what matters is how the technical effect is achieved, not merely that an effect (determining ball contact) is produced; acceleration data processing in a SVM is not equivalent to comparing sound signals to predetermined sound signals.

  • Auxiliary requests based on amended claims (adding acceleration sensing) establish infringement

    Kläger

    Begründung: The auxiliary feature requiring acceleration sensing (1.2a/8.2a) uses the word 'additionally', meaning both sound and acceleration sensors are needed; the attacked embodiment has only an accelerometer, not a separate sound sensor.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze
In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.
Urgency for PI requires prompt investigation upon knowledge of infringementThree-month delay without significant clarification steps defeats urgencyDoctrine of equivalents: assessment focuses on how the technical effect is achieved, not merely that an effect is producedDescription passage identifying acceleration as 'additional' to sound sensing precludes treating acceleration as an equivalent alternativeCosts of protective letter are 'other costs' of proceedings under Art. 69(1) UPCA

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

Claim 1 requires sensing a sound signal produced by the ball and comparing it to predetermined sound signals. The description at [0037] states acceleration measurement 'may be used additionally' — this makes acceleration supplementary, not an alternative to sound sensing. Auxiliary claims adding an 'acceleration signal additionally sensed' (features 1.2a/8.2a) require both a sound sensing means and an acceleration sensing means; the defendant's product, which uses only an accelerometer, does not satisfy this construction.