UPC_CFI_806/2025 – Barco v Yealink

Court
Local Division Brussels
Date
Outcome
Withdrawn
Sector
Electronics/SEP
Decision Type
PROCEDURAL

Expert Commentary

Preliminary objection withdrawal Facts 1. In the action on the merits, Yealink had raised a preliminary objection that the Brussels Local Division had no territorial competence under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA. 2. The same issue was raised in preliminary injunction (PI) proceedings between the same parties: in these proceedings, in which the facts were also identical as far as jurisdiction was concerned, the Court of Appeal decided that Yealink’s objections were unfounded. 3. Yealink therefore decided to withdraw its preliminary objection pending in the action on the merits. Order The Court closes the preliminary objection proceedings and dismisses all of Yealink’s requests in its application of 17 November 2025. Comment 1. How can you dismiss requests which have been withdrawn? 2. It is not clear if the reason for the dismissal is that the JR thinks that you have to use the R. 265 RoP route - which only refers to “actions” - to withdraw your application.

Full Decision Text

Unified Patent Court Brussels - Local Division Einheitliches Patentgericht UPCCFI806/2025 Juridiction unifiée : du brevet Final Order (R. 19 RoP) (III) of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Local Division Brussels Issued on 4 December 2025 CLAIMANT: BARCO NV Represented by: Christian Dekoninck, Taylor Wessing N.V., Waterloolaan 16, 1000 Brussel, Belgium, Wim Maas, Taylor Wessing N.V., Kennedyplein 201, 5611 ZT Eindhoven, The Netherlands Laura Coucke, Taylor Wessing N.V., Waterloolaan 16, 1000 Brussel, Belgium. Referred to as: BARCO DEFENDANTS: 1. YEALINK (XIAMEN) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd. 2. YEALINK (EUROPE) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY BV Represented by: Ruud van der Velden, Hogan Lovells International LLP, Strawinskylaan 4129 - 1077 ZX – Amsterdam, The Netherlands Stefan Dusault (Hogan Lovells International LLP) Floris Patijn (Hogan Lovells International LLP) Django Wagenaer (Hogan Lovells International LLP) Co-Represented by: Dr. Martin Fähndrich Hogan Lovells International LLP, Dreischeibenhaus 1, 40211 Dusseldorf, Germany Referred to as: together as YEALINK separately as YEALINK XIAMEN and YEALINK EUROPE PATENT AT ISSUE LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: ENGLISH SUBJECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS: Infringement proceedings Preliminary Objection (R. 19 RoP) PANEL/LOCAL DIVISION: President – Judge-Rapporteur: Samuel Granata Legally Qualified Judge: Petri Rinkinen Legally Qualified Judge: Mélanie Bessaud DECIDING JUDGE: This Order was issued by Samuel Granata in his capacity of Judge-Rapporteur. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 1. On 29 August 2025 initiated infringement proceedings, and more specifically introduced their statement of claim. 2. On 14 October 2025 the Court set a procedural agenda in its procedural (R. 9 RoP) order taking into consideration to be solved servicing issues. 3. On 17 November 2025, YEALINK submitted a Preliminary Objection (in accordance with R. 19 RoP) requesting that the Court hold, for the reasons set out in the objection, that the LD Brussels has no territorial competence under Article 33(1)(a) UPCA. 4. In its final PI order issued on 21 March 2025 in case UPCCFI582/2024, the Court (LD Brussels) already held that it had territorial competence. The PI procedure involved the same parties, the same patent and the same factual background. This decision followed YEALINK's objection regarding the territorial competence of the LD Brussels. 5. On 7 April 2025, BARCO lodged a Statement of Appeal against the first instance PI order issued by the LD Brussels (UPCCFI582/2024), requesting that the Court of Appeal would overturn mentioned order and grant the provisional measures requested, along with some additional requests. On 28 April 2025, YEALINK lodged a cross-appeal against the First Instance PI Order (UPCCFI582/2024), arguing that the LD Brussels had incorrectly accepted territorial competence under Article 33(1)(a) UPCA. The case (UPCCoA317/2025) was pending before the Court of Appeal when the Preliminary Objection was submitted in UPCCFI806/2025. 6. After the Court issued, on 19 November 2025, its procedural (R. 19 RoP) order (I) inviting the parties the latest by 25 November 2025 to comment on dealing with the Preliminary Order in the main proceedings (cf. R. 20.2. RoP) and comments were received, the Court issued a procedural (R.19 RoP) order (II) on 23 November 2025 stating the following: 1. The Court stays the Preliminary Objection proceedings and this until the Court of Appeal has issued its decision in UPCCoA317/2025. 2. The Court sets the following schedule for comments: YEALINK (as applicant in the Preliminary Objection proceedings) is invited to submit its comments to the Court within 5 (five) working days of the decision taken by the Court of Appeal in UPCCoA317/2025. This term will start on the first working day following mentioned decision and the last working day ending at 6PM CEST. • BARCO (the defendant in the Preliminary Objection proceedings) is invited to submit its comments to the Court within 5 (five) working days of receiving YEALINK's comments. This term will start on the first working day following YEALINKS’s comments and the last working day ending at 6PM CEST. 3. If the Court of Appeal does not issue its decision in UPCCoA317/2025 by 22 December 2025, the parties are invited to comment on extending the deadline for YEALINK to submit its Statement of Defence. Comments on such an extension should be submitted by 29 December 2025 (6PM CEST) at the latest. 7. On 28 November 2025, the Court of Appeal (UPCCoA317/2025) rejected YEALINK’s cross-appeal and confirmed the territorial competence of the Brussels Local Division. 8. On 3 December 2025, YEALINK requested the Court to take notice of the withdrawal and close the Preliminary Objection-proceedings accompanied with the following reasoning: “In light of the Court of Appeal’s decision, and in the interest of procedural economy, Yealink hereby withdraws its Preliminary Objection. This withdrawal is made without prejudice to any substantive or procedural rights Yealink may invoke in these proceedings, including all defences available under the UPCA, the UPC Rules of Procedure and any other applicable sources of law”. 9. Based on above request no further comments by BARCO are held to be necessary. ORDER The Court closes the Preliminary Objection-proceedings and dismisses all requests made by YEALINK in its application of 17 November 2025 based on the explicit request thereto by YEALINK. Issued by Samuel Granata (Judge-Rapporteur) on 4 December 2025 Samuel GRANATA Legally Qualified Judge Judge-Rapporteur

Key Holdings

  • Yealink withdrew its preliminary objection regarding the Brussels Local Division's territorial competence (Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA).
  • The withdrawal followed a Court of Appeal decision in related PI proceedings where Yealink's identical objections were found unfounded.
  • The Court closed the preliminary objection proceedings and dismissed all of Yealink's requests.
  • The commentary questions the procedural correctness of 'dismissing' withdrawn requests and whether R. 265 RoP was the intended route for withdrawal.

Tags

  • Competence
  • Jurisdiction
  • Preliminary Objection
  • Withdrawal

Related Cases

View original decision