Barco v Yealink (CFI, 19 October 2026)

Date	19 October 2026
Court	CFI
Division	Brussels (BE) Local Division
Type of action	Infringement Action
Case number(s)	UPC_CFI_806/2025, UPC_CFI_185/2026
Registry reference	UPC_CFI_806/2025 (Infringement, node 184500) · UPC-CFI-0000185/2026 (Counter claim for revocation, node 184499), fichier : DEF_Order2_R.105RoP · UPC_CFI_806-2025 · UPC_CFI_185-2026_Signed.pdf
Parties	Barco N.V. v. Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd., Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.
Language	English

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 · 22 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 19 October 2026, published in the infringement action (UPC_CFI_806/2025) and in the counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_185/2026), the judge-rapporteur of the Brussels Local Division, Samuel Granata, closes the interim procedure in the dispute between Barco N.V. and Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V. over EP 3 732 827, sets the value of the dispute and confirms the oral hearing of 3 November 2026.

Question

Following the Court of Appeal’s decision of 16 October 2026 upholding the refusal of auxiliary request AR6, may the interim procedure be closed without further written exchanges, and on what timetable should the hearing proceed?

Decision

Acting under Rule 105.5 RoP, the judge-rapporteur closes the interim procedure without further written submissions, the Court of Appeal having confirmed on 16 October 2026 (UPC_CoA_145/2026) the refusal of the AR6 application to amend under Rules 30.2 and 263 RoP. The value of the dispute is set at EUR 1,000,000 for the infringement action and EUR 1,500,000 for the counterclaim, EUR 2,500,000 in total. The parties are to inform the court through the case management system, before 28 October 2026 at 18:00, whether they have agreed on recoverable costs and on what terms. The hearing of 3 November 2026 is confirmed on an indicative timetable, and a clerical error in the timetable set by the order of 14 September 2026 is corrected.

Key points for practice

A Court of Appeal ruling on the admissibility of an auxiliary request fixes the scope of the merits debate and allows the interim procedure to be closed without further exchanges.
The judge-rapporteur may correct a clerical error in a hearing timetable set by an earlier order when closing the interim procedure.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 30.2, 105.5 and 263 RoP

Related decisions

Barco v Yealink, Court of Appeal, 16 October 2026, decision handed down three days earlier, upholding the refusal to admit auxiliary request AR6 in the same proceedings.
Barco v Yealink, Brussels Local Division, 14 September 2026, earlier order setting the value of the dispute and arranging the hearing according to the outcome of the then pending appeal.
Barco v Yealink, Brussels Local Division, 17 August 2026, order refusing auxiliary request AR6, which was appealed.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 20 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.

Going further

Lexicon: Pre-trial phase and pre-trial judge, Oral procedure and hearing (UPC).

Source and translations

Official source: Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language: English from the language of proceedings
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

UPC_CFI_806/2025 official number
UPC_CFI_185/2026 official number

Follow these proceedings

Parties

claimantBarco N.V.15 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantYealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd.13 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantYealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.13 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

26 November 2025 Barco v Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology (CFI, 26 November 2025) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_806/2025
Le juge-rapporteur sursoit à statuer sur l’exception préliminaire d’incompétence territoriale de Yealink jusqu’à l’arrêt de la cour d’appel dans l’affaire UPC_CoA_317/2025 et fixe le calendrier des observations.
4 December 2025 BARCO v YEALINK (XIAMEN) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY (CFI, 4 December 2025) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_806/2025
L’incident d’exception préliminaire est clos et les demandes de Yealink sont rejetées à la suite du retrait de l’exception.
17 August 2026 Barco v Yealink (Xiamen) Network (CFI, UPC_CFI_185/2026, 17 August 2026) Counterclaim for revocation · UPC_CFI_185/2026
17 August 2026 Barco v Yealink (Xiamen) Network (CFI, UPC_CFI_806/2025, 17 August 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_806/2025
La demande de Barco tendant à introduire une sixième requête subsidiaire, présentée le 4 août 2026, est rejetée faute de diligence et en raison de la gêne causée à Yealink. L'autorisation de faire appel est accordée.
14 September 2026 Barco v Yealink (Xiamen) Network (CFI, UPC_CFI_185/2026, 14 September 2026) Counterclaim for revocation · UPC_CFI_185/2026
La division locale de Bruxelles fixe la valeur de l'action en contrefaçon à 1 million d'euros et celle de la demande reconventionnelle en nullité à 1,5 million d'euros, et organise l'audience selon l'issue de l'appel pendant.
14 September 2026 Barco v Yealink (Xiamen) Network (CFI, UPC_CFI_806/2025, 14 September 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_806/2025
La division locale de Bruxelles fixe la valeur de l'action en contrefaçon à 1 million d'euros et celle de la demande reconventionnelle en nullité à 1,5 million d'euros, et organise l'audience selon l'issue de l'appel pendant.
19 October 2026 Barco v Yealink (CFI, UPC_CFI_185/2026, 19 October 2026) Counterclaim for revocation · UPC_CFI_185/2026
La division locale de Bruxelles confirme l’audience du 3 novembre 2026 après la confirmation en appel de l’ordonnance du 17 août 2026, arrête le minutage des plaidoiries et fixe au 28 octobre 2026 l’information sur un éventuel accord relatif aux frais répétibles.
19 October 2026 Barco v Yealink (CFI, 19 October 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_185/2026, UPC_CFI_806/2025

What the record states

Nature of the act: Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Le juge rapporteur clôt la phase intermédiaire sans nouvel échange écrit, fixe la valeur du litige à 2 500 000 euros et maintient l'audience au 3 novembre 2026 après l'arrêt de la cour d'appel du 16 octobre 2026.
Appeal: No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance: First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

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

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Barco v Yealink (Xiamen) Network (CFI, UPC_CFI_806/2025, 14 September 2026) cited in this record
Barco v Yealink (Xiamen) Network (CFI, UPC_CFI_806/2025, 17 August 2026) cited in this record
Barco v Yealink (CoA, 16 October 2026) cited in this record
Barco v Yealink (CFI, UPC_CFI_185/2026, 19 October 2026) cites this decision
Yealink (Xiamen) Network v Barco (CoA, UPC_CoA_84/2026, 3 November 2026) cites this decision

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) · Barco v Yealink (CoA, 14 August 2025) · Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology v Barco (CFI, 8 May 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.