Barco v Yealink (CFI, UPC_CFI_185/2026, 19 October 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 30 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By procedural order of 19 October 2026, the judge-rapporteur of the Brussels Local Division confirms the oral hearing of 3 November 2026 in the dispute over EP 3 732 827, after the Court of Appeal finally upheld, on 16 October 2026, the order of 17 August 2026. He sets the pleading timetable, keeps the practical directions given at the interim conference, and invites the parties to state, by 6 pm on 28 October 2026, whether an agreement has been reached on recoverable costs.

Facts and procedure

Barco NV brought an infringement action (UPC_CFI_806/2025) before the Brussels Local Division against Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology, which filed a counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_185/2026). The interim conference was held by video conference on 8 September 2026 and led to a first order on 14 September 2026, setting the value of the infringement action at one million euros and that of the counterclaim at one million five hundred thousand euros, a total of two million five hundred thousand euros, and making the hearing date conditional on the Court of Appeal ruling on the order of 17 August 2026. The Court of Appeal having upheld that order on 16 October 2026, the judge-rapporteur draws the consequences for the timetable.

The applicable law

The order is made by the judge-rapporteur under Rule 105.5 of the Rules of Procedure, referred to at the head of the act, which allows the necessary steps to be taken to prepare the hearing once the interim conference is closed.

Question

Was the hearing to be maintained on 3 November 2026, and within which pleading framework, once the Court of Appeal had upheld the order of 17 August 2026?

Decision

The date of 3 November 2026 is confirmed. The judge-rapporteur sets the following timetable: forty-five minutes per party on validity, auxiliary requests included, then thirty minutes per party in rebuttal and reply on validity, sixty minutes per party on infringement, including the requests and the relief sought, then fifteen minutes per party in reply and rebuttal. Questions from the Court do not count against pleading time and the timetable may be adapted at the hearing. The practical directions of the first order remain applicable, the values of the proceedings it set remain in place, and the parties must inform the Court through the case management system, by 6 pm on 28 October 2026, whether an agreement on recoverable costs has been reached and on what terms.

Key points for practice

• A hearing date made conditional on the outcome of an appeal is confirmed by a separate order as soon as the Court of Appeal has ruled, without a further interim conference.
• Pleading time is allocated issue by issue, validity first and infringement second, which requires the validity case to be calibrated before the hearing.
• Questions from the Court do not eat into pleading time, which makes the exchange with the panel less costly than it looks.
• The value of the proceedings set at the interim conference governs recoverable costs and is not reopened at this stage.
• Any agreement on recoverable costs is sought before the hearing, with a deadline set to the hour.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rule 105.5

Related decisions

• Barco v Yealink (CFI, 14 September 2026), first interim conference order, value of the proceedings and conditions for keeping the hearing date.
• Barco v Yealink (CFI, 17 August 2026), refusal of the sixth auxiliary request.
• Barco v Yealink (CoA, 16 October 2026), that refusal upheld on appeal.

Only the official text is authentic.