Barco v Yealink (CoA, 14 August 2025)

Date	14 August 2025
Court	CoA
Division	Luxembourg (LU)
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_16918/2025 · ORD_18074/2025
Parties	Barco N.V.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In Barco’s appeal against the order of the Brussels Local Division of 21 March 2025, which had dismissed its application for provisional measures against Yealink (EP 3 732 827) for lack of urgency, the Court of Appeal, by order of 14 August 2025 (UPC_CoA_317/2025 and UPC_CoA_376/2025), refused Barco leave to add a subsidiary claim directed at the WPP30 device and rejected its request for further written pleadings. It shows that a claim which looks narrower may broaden the case, and that what was said at the first-instance hearing may be relied on in the appeal.

Question

May an appellant add on appeal a subsidiary claim directed at a single device (Rule 263) and obtain a further exchange of pleadings (Rule 36) to answer the respondent’s allegedly new arguments?

Decision

The subsidiary claim, aimed at the WPP30 “or any other similar device”, appears more limited, but the infringements alleged at first instance concerned set-ups including the WPP30, not that device alone. It therefore broadened the claim, with no explanation of why it could not have been made earlier with reasonable diligence, and would unreasonably hinder Yealink (paragraphs 12 to 22). The oral hearing is part of provisional measures proceedings: Yealink may refer to what was said there, subject to the prohibition on misrepresenting facts (Rule 284) (paragraphs 26 to 29). The complaints about new arguments were unreasoned, refuted by the first-instance pleadings or within the scope of Rule 222 (paragraphs 31 to 39).

Key points for practice

Whether a change of claim broadens the case is assessed against the infringement as alleged at first instance, not merely the wording of the request (paragraphs 17 and 21).
Statements made at the first-instance hearing may be cited on appeal. Any correction belongs in the statement of grounds of appeal (paragraph 29).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Arts 52(3) and 62(4)
Rules of Procedure: Rules 36, 102.1, 115, 205, 210.2, 222, 236, 237, 263 and 284

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.

Going further

Lexicon: UPC Court of Appeal.

Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.

Source and translations

Official source: Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language: not recorded
Translation available: no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked: not recorded

Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantBarco N.V.15 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La cour d’appel refuse l’ajout d’une demande subsidiaire qui élargit la demande sans justification de sa tardiveté, et rejette la demande d’écritures supplémentaires et d’exclusion de parties du mémoire en réponse.
Appeal: Decision of the Court of Appeal.
Instance: Court of Appeal decision.

Patents mentioned

EP 3 732 827 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 3 732 827` Method and system for making functional devices availalble to participants of meetings recorded proprietor: Barco NV	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 12 other decision(s): Barco v Yealink (Xiamen) Network (CFI, UPC_CFI_806/2025, 17 August 202 · YEALINK (XIAMEN) NETWORK v BARCO (CFI, 7 May 2026) · BARCO v YEALINK (XIAMEN) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY (CFI, 4 December 2025) · Yealink (Xiamen) Network v Barco (CoA, 28 November 2025) · Barco v Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology (CFI, 26 November 2025) · Barco v Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology (CoA, 21 August 2025) · Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology v Barco (CFI, 8 May 2025) · Barco v Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology (CoA, 17 April 2025)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet · European Patent Register existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically) mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis

The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.