Barco v Yealink (Xiamen) Network (CFI, UPC_CFI_806/2025, 17 August 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 17 August 2026 issued in the infringement action (UPC_CFI_806/2025) and the counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_185/2026) concerning EP 3 732 827, the Brussels Local Division refused Barco NV’s application to introduce a sixth auxiliary request against Yealink. That request, filed at the EPO during the opposition hearing of 17 and 18 June 2026, folded into claim 1 the subject-matter of claims 8 and 9, which had never been asserted. The order makes clear that a patentee facing a parallel opposition must coordinate both strategies from the outset.

Question

May a patentee introduce before the UPC, after the exchange of pleadings, an auxiliary request filed at the EPO during the opposition hearing?

Decision

No. Barco did not explain why the request was not in its original pleading (paragraph 28), the divergence between the sets of requests stemmed from its own choice and amounted to a change of strategy (paragraphs 29 to 31). It waited more than seven weeks after the EPO hearing, and until after Yealink’s rejoinder, before applying (paragraphs 33 and 34). Admission would unduly hinder Yealink, which would have to analyse claims never asserted shortly before the interim conference and the oral hearing (paragraph 35). Under Rule 30, the request did not respond to the counterclaim, which attacks only claims 1, 6, 11, 12 and 13 (paragraphs 38 to 40). Leave to appeal was granted (paragraph 43) and costs were reserved (paragraph 44).

Key points for practice

• Rule 263.2 requires both diligence and the absence of undue hindrance. A diligent patentee coordinates its EPO and UPC strategies in advance (paragraph 34).
• An auxiliary request must answer the invalidity attacks actually raised: the counterclaim defines the scope of the debate (paragraph 40).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 33(3)(a)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 30.1(b), 30.2, 220.2, 263.1, 263.2 and 295

European Patent Convention

Art. 84 and Art. 123(2) and (3)

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, Meril Italy v Edwards, 25 November 2025, Paris Central Division, NJOY Netherlands v VMR Products, 22 January 2025, Mannheim Local Division, Panasonic v OPPO, 27 June 2024, Milan Central Division, Fisher & Paykel v Flexicare, 15 January 2026, Hamburg Local Division, 10x Genomics v Vizgen, 20 December 2024, Hamburg Local Division, Teleflex v Speed, 27 April 2026, Court of Appeal, Fujifilm v Kodak, 13 July 2026, Munich Local Division, JingAO v Chint, 31 March 2025

Related decisions

• Barco v Yealink (Xiamen) Network, 14 September 2026, order setting the value in dispute and arranging the hearing around the appeal against this order.

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.