UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

ACT 16267/2024

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

Case details
Status
—
Action
Provisional measures
Category
Provisional Measures
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Rien Broekstra
Division
Hamburg LD
Judges
Language
—
First decided
Jun 3, 2024
Decisions
  • 2024-06-03
    PI deniedPreliminary injunctionApplication 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.

    Legal issues: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
Documents
  • EBC48C668C2A67842ABE7BBFF9505D7E_en.pdf2024-06-03EN
Plain-English summary

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.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

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

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

    Note: 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

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

    Note: 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

    Respondent

    Note: 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.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

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

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62(4) UPCA

    Reason: 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

    Claimant

    Reason: 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

    Claimant

    Reason: 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.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
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

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

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.