UPC_CFI_806/2025; UPC_CFI_185/2026 – Barco v Yealink

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

Expert Commentary

Interim conference Facts 1. An interim conference (“IC”) took place on 8 September 2026. 2. The IC resulted in an order of 14 September 2026, which provided that if the procedural order of 17 August under appeal were to be overturned, a new IC would be organized. 3. The Court of Appeal affirmed the 17 August order refusing Barco’s further auxiliary request (“AR”) aligned on the AR which had been accepted by the EPO opposition division (“OD”) as novel and whose inventive step remained to be decided at a further OD hearing in November. Order 1. The Court maintains the hearing date on 3 November 2026. 2. The parties have asked for a preliminary opinion. If the Court gives such a (non-binding) preliminary opinion at the start of the hearing, parties will get 30-45 minutes to restructure their oral argument. 3. The parties are to inform the Court before 28 October 6 p.m. if an agreement is reached on recoverable costs. Comment 1. The Advisory Committee has questioned the Observers (representatives and users) about the uneven caseload of the Local / Regional Divisions. As I previously reported, they suggested on this occasion that all Divisions should give a (non-binding) preliminary opinion at the start of the oral hearing. For certain Divisions, this would require a change in their habits, inspired from national proceedings. It is good to see that the Brussels Division is apparently going to adopt it. It would be even better if this becomes standard practice in all Divisions. 2. I have often commented on the advantage of having parties agree on costs (and on all other matters where reasonable parties – and representatives – should be able to find common ground). This Local Division (as many other Divisions by now) also gives a clear sign that it expects such an arrangement.

Full Decision Text

Brussels - Local Division UPC_CFI_806/2025 UPC_CFI_185/2026 Procedural Order 2 R. 105.5 RoP of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Issued on 19 October 2026 Concerning EP 3 732 827 CLAIMANT INFRINGEMENT ACTION (UPC_CFI_806/2025) DEFENDANT COUNTERCLAIM FOR REVOCATION (UPC_CFI_185/2026) 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 Netherlan ds Laura Coucke, Taylor Wessing N.V., Waterloolaan 16, 1000 Brussel, Belgium Joseph Lenthall Hereafter referred to as: “Claimant” or “BARCO” DEFENDANTS INFRINGEMENT ACTION (UPC_CFI_806/2025) CLAIMANTS COUNTERCLAIM FOR REVOCATION (UPC_CFI_185/2026) (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 Hereafter referred to as: Together as YEALINK Separately as YEALINK XIAMEN and YEALINK EUROPE PATENT AT ISSUE Number Proprietor(s) EP 3 732 827 BARCO NV LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English SUBJECT MATTER: R. 105 RoP 2 PANEL - LOCAL DIVISION Presiding Judge – Judge-Rapporteur: Samuel Granata Legally Qualified Judge: Petri Rinkinen Legally Qualified Judge: Mélanie Bessaud Technically Qualified Judge: Steven Richard Kitchen DECIDING JUDGES: Order issued by the Judge-Rapporteur I. THE INTERIM CONFERENCE DATED 8 SEPTEMBER 2026 1. An interim conference (hereafter “IC”) was organised via video conference (Webex) on 8 September 2026 at 10 am (CEST) and, subsequently, a procedural order was issued on 14 September 2026 (hereafter referred to as “Procedural Order IC 1”). 2. In Procedural Order IC 1 the following was ordered by the Judge-Rapporteur: 1. The value of the infringement action (UPC_CFI_806/2025) is set to € 1 million and the value of the counterclaim (UPC_CFI_806/2025) at € 1.5 million, resulting in a total value of the proceedings in the amount of € 2.5 million. 2. The parties shall inform the Court via CMS, by 28 October 2026 (…), whether an agreement was reached (and its terms) regarding the recoverable costs. 3. Should the CoA confirm the Procedural Order dated 17 August 2026, and should such a final order be issued before 3 November 2026, the date of the OH, set at 3 November 2026, is maintained. 4. Should a final order be issued by the CoA before the OH and such order would overturn the Procedural Order dated 17 August 2026, a follow-up IC will be organized (preferably) within two working days of such final order. During the follow-up IC, the Judge-Rapporteur will discuss the boundaries within which YEALINK is permitted to exercise its right of defence, and whether this would jeopardise the OH set for 3 November 2026. 5. Should no final order be issued by the CoA before 27 October 2026, a follow-up IC will be organized on 28 October 2026 (…) to discuss the whether the oral hearing should be postponed awaiting such final order. 6. Even if a follow-up IC needs to be organised (see points 4 and 5 of this order), the points 1 and 2 of this order are final and must be adhered to by the parties involved. II. CONFIRMATION OF ORAL HEARING SET ON 3 NOVEMBER 2026 AND TIME FRAME ORAL PLEADINGS 3. On 16 October 2026, the Court of Appeal UPC issued a final order confirming the procedural order issued by the Court dated 17 August 2026 (UPC_CoA_145/2026). In its 17 August 2026 procedural order, the Court dismissed BARCO’s "Application for Leave to Amend the Patent pursuant to Rules 30.2 and 263 RoP". Based on the CoA confirmation of the procedural order dated 17 August 2026, AR6 is not permitted in the UPC proceedings. Therefore, no further written pleadings are deemed necessary. 4. The interim phase will be closed and, in application of Procedural Order IC 1 (point 3), the oral hearing will be organized on 3 November 2026. 3 5. As a material mistake was made regarding the timing of the pleadings in Procedural Order IC 1 and after having received additional comments from the parties, the Judge-Rapporteur readdresses “I.E. Timeframe for the Oral hearing” of his Procedural Order IC 1 as follows: The following will be used as guidelines for the oral hearing, based on the proposals made in the Agenda regarding the timeframe for the oral hearing: Guideline 1 The parties expressed their preference for the Court to provide a preliminary (non- binding) opinion on some or all of the issues to be assessed. If a preliminary (non-binding) opinion is expressed, the parties will be given 30–45 minutes to restructure their pleadings based on the timeframe adopted after the preliminary non-binding opinion is delivered. Guideline 2 If no preliminary (non-binding) opinion is expressed, the Judge-Rapporteur discussed with the Parties the timeframe to be adapted and, as mentioned, later comments were received from the parties. The following timeframe is set by the Court as a guideline: Action Maximum Term Administration and Technical checks 5 min Introduction by the Court 15- 30 min Presentation and interpretation of the parties and the Patent by BARCO + BARCO on Claim Construction 30 min Presentation and interpretation of the parties and the Patent by YEALINK + YEALINK on Claim Construction 30 min YEALINK on invalidity (including auxiliary requests) 45 min BARCO on validity (including auxiliary requests) 45 min Pause TBD Rebuttal YEALINK and Reply BARCO on validity 30 min/party Questions by the Court lunchbreak TBD BARCO on Infringement (including requests/relief) 60 min YEALINK on infringement (including requests/relief) 60 min Reply BARCO and Rebuttal YEALINK 15 min/party Questions by the Court Closing remarks by the Court (setting date for decision) The parties were informed that the timetable may be adapted based on (i.a.) the Court's questions. Parties are informed that if questions are raised during the pleadings, this will not affect their total pleading time on an issue. 6. Parties are informed that all other practical guidelines set in the Procedural Order IC 1 remain applicable. 4 7. Parties remain invited to inform the Court the latest by 28 October 2026 whether an agreement was reached among them regarding the recoverable costs (see §2 Point 2 above). II. ORDER The Judge-Rapporteur orders that: 1. The value of the infringement action (UPC_CFI_806/2025) is set to € 1 million and the value of the counterclaim (UPC_CFI_806/2025) at € 1.5 million, resulting in a total value of the proceedings in the amount of € 2.5 million (see Procedural Order IC 1). 2. By 6 pm on 28 October 2026, the parties are instructed to inform the Court via CMS whether an agreement has been reached regarding the recoverable costs, and if so, what the terms are. 3. The date of the oral hearing is confirmed as 3 November 2026. During this hearing, the parties are instructed to adhere to the timeframe set by the Judge-Rapporteur under § 5 of this order. Issued by the Judge-Rapporteur on 19 October 2026 Samuel GRANATA Judge-Rapporteur Presiding Judge LD Brussels Legally Qualified Judge

Key Holdings

  • The Court maintained the scheduled hearing date following the Court of Appeal's decision affirming the refusal of a further auxiliary request.
  • If the Court provides a non-binding preliminary opinion at the start of the oral hearing, the parties will be allowed 30 to 45 minutes to restructure their oral arguments.
  • The parties were directed to inform the Court by a specified deadline prior to the hearing if an agreement on recoverable costs has been reached.

Tags

  • Interim conference
  • Preliminary opinion
  • Recoverable costs
  • Oral hearing
  • Auxiliary request

Related Cases

View original decision