UPC CFI 151/2024
Apr 18, 2024·EP1944067 · Method and system for detecting an offside situation
Action number: ACT 16267/2024
- Case details
- StatusCase ClosedActionProvisional measuresCategoryProvisional measures
- Parties
- Respondents
- Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)Other / unknown
- Kinexon GmbHOperating co.
- Kinexon Sports & Media GmbHOperating co.
Representatives- Tilman Mueller-Stoy-Bardehle Pagenberg
- Division
- Hamburg LD
- Technology
- Other fieldsConsumer products
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Jun 3, 2024
- Last decision
- Aug 14, 2025
| Preliminary injunction granted | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 54% (38/70) | 124 |
| Hamburg LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Sabine Klepsch | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Stefan Schilling | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Samuel Granata | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Ballinno B.V. (9 cases)·Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) (4 cases)
This dispute contains 8 other proceedings
UPC CFI 484/2025·UPC APP 44034/2024·UPC CoA 328/2024·UPC CFI 230/2024·UPC APP 23209/2024 and 3 more
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: Hamburg LD·2024
- 2025-08-14
Summary: 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.
Show the legal issues (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 measuresPublic
Summary: 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.
Show the legal issues (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
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Case Closure Formal Check | 2025-08-15 | Not public |
| Release of security | 2025-08-15 | Not public |
| Headnote-and-Keywords | 2025-08-14 | Not public |
| Release of security | 2025-08-14 | Not public |
| Release of security | 2025-08-14 | Public |
| Outcome of the Order | 2024-11-19 | Not public |
| Close workflow | 2024-11-19 | Public |
| Outcome of the Order | 2024-09-17 | Not public |
| Close workflow | 2024-09-17 | Public |
| Outcome of the Order | 2024-09-17 | Not public |
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
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 62(2) UPCA; Rule 209(2)(b) RoP; Rule 211(3) RoPNote: 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 RoPNote: 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
RespondentNote: 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
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62(4) UPCAReason: 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
ClaimantReason: 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
ClaimantReason: 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.
Browse other cases on this principle.
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.