UPC CFI 151/2024
18. Apr. 2024·EP1944067 · Method and system for detecting an offside situation
Hauptaktenzeichen: ACT 16267/2024
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase ClosedVerfahrensartEinstweilige VerfügungKategorieEinstweilige Maßnahmen
- Parteien
- Beklagte
- Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)Sonstige / unbekannt
- Kinexon GmbHUnternehmen
- Kinexon Sports & Media GmbHUnternehmen
Vertreter- Tilman Mueller-Stoy-Bardehle Pagenberg
- Division
- Hamburg LD
- Technologie
- Other fieldsConsumer products
- Sprache
- English
- Erste Entscheidung
- 3. Juni 2024
- Letzte Entscheidung
- 14. Aug. 2025
| Einstweilige Verfügung erlassen | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 54% (38/70) | 124 |
| Hamburg LD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Sabine Klepsch | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Stefan Schilling | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Samuel Granata | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Ballinno B.V. (9 Verfahren)·Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) (4 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 8 weitere Verfahren
UPC CFI 484/2025·UPC APP 44034/2024·UPC CoA 328/2024·UPC CFI 230/2024·UPC APP 23209/2024 und 3 weitere
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
Weitere Verfahren: Hamburg LD·2024
- 2025-08-14
Zusammenfassung: Hamburg Local Division (14 August 2025) ordered that the EUR 56,000 security for procedural costs provided by Ballinno B.V. be released to the defendants (Kinexon companies), constituting a partial settlement of the pending costs application, and declared the costs application (App_44034/2024) closed.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- Security for procedural costs (R. 158 RoP)
- Settlement of costs application (R. 265 RoP analogy)
- Release of security deposit
- 2024-06-03Application for provisional measuresÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: 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 anzeigen (4)
- Urgency requirement for provisional measures under Art. 62(2) UPCA and Rule 209(2)(b) RoP
- Degree of certainty of infringement under Art. 62(4) UPCA
- VAR (Video Assistant Referee) technology
- Costs of protective letter
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Case Closure Formal Check | 2025-08-15 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Release of security | 2025-08-15 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Headnote-and-Keywords | 2025-08-14 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Release of security | 2025-08-14 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Release of security | 2025-08-14 | Öffentlich |
| Outcome of the Order | 2024-11-19 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Close workflow | 2024-11-19 | Öffentlich |
| Outcome of the Order | 2024-09-17 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Close workflow | 2024-09-17 | Öffentlich |
| Outcome of the Order | 2024-09-17 | Nicht öffentlich |
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.
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) RoPHinweis: 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 RoPHinweis: 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
BeklagterHinweis: 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.
Connected Ball Technology infringes the patent by using sensor data to determine ball contact
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 62(4) UPCABegründung: 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
KlägerBegründung: 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
KlägerBegründung: 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.
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.
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.