Barco v Yealink (Xiamen) Network (CFI, UPC_CFI_185/2026, 14 September 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 14 September 2026 following the interim conference (Rule 105.5), filed in the counterclaim file, the judge-rapporteur of the Brussels Local Division set the value of Barco v Yealink at EUR 1 million for the infringement action and EUR 1.5 million for the counterclaim for revocation. As Barco had produced no economic data, the judge applied the rebuttable assumption in the Administrative Committee’s guidelines that a counterclaim may be valued at the value of the infringement action plus up to 50%. The order also arranges the oral hearing of 3 November 2026 around the pending appeal against the refusal to amend the patent.

Question

How should a counterclaim for revocation be valued where the patentee provides no economic data on the patent, and how does the pending appeal affect the hearing date?

Decision

Barco’s valuation of the infringement action was accepted, no evidence to the contrary having been produced (paragraph 6). For the counterclaim, the judge applied point II.2.b.ii of the guidelines and set the value at EUR 1.5 million: validity matters beyond the infringement outcome, and an opposition filed by other potential competitors points to a wider interest (paragraph 9). The hearing stands if the Court of Appeal upholds the order of 17 August 2026 before 3 November. A further interim conference is scheduled if it is reversed or if no ruling has been given by 27 October (paragraph 15). Yealink’s late objection to exhibit E9 was left for the hearing (paragraph 4).

Key points for practice

• A patentee resisting an uplift in the value of the counterclaim should produce concrete economic data on the patent. Otherwise the 50% uplift may be applied (paragraph 9).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 74(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 30.2, 104, 105, 106, 223 and 263

Other provisions

Administrative Committee Guidelines for the determination of Court fees and the ceiling of recoverable costs, point II.2.b

Related decisions

• Barco v Yealink (Xiamen) Network, 17 August 2026, order refusing the application to amend the patent (auxiliary request 6), under appeal.

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.