Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology v Barco (CFI, 8 May 2025)

Date	8 May 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Brussels (BE) Local Division
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_18947/2025 · ORD_19104/2025
Parties	Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V., Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd.

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

The Brussels Local Division dismissed Yealink’s application under Rule 353 to rectify the final order of 21 March 2025 issued in the provisional measures proceedings concerning EP 3 732 827 (UPC_CFI_582/2024). That order required Barco, as the unsuccessful party, to bear Yealink’s costs « up to the applicable ceiling of € 112.000 ». For practitioners, the order confirms the narrow scope of rectification and the enforceability of an interim award of costs.

Question

Can an order to bear costs « up to the applicable ceiling » be rectified under Rule 353 so as to state an amount of EUR 112,000 as an interim award of costs?

Decision

No. The grounds for rectification in Rule 353 are exhaustive: clerical errors, miscalculations and obvious omissions (paragraph 4). The reasons form part of the decision and are read with the operative part (paragraph 8), read in that way, the order makes Barco bear the costs up to the ceiling, so no rectification is needed (paragraph 9). The order contains no clerical error or slip (paragraph 10), and an interim award does not have to be followed by a further award to be enforceable (paragraph 11).

Key points for practice

Rule 353 cannot be used to rephrase the operative part in wording a party considers more favourable: the application must target a clerical error or an obvious omission.
Practical point: the operative part of a costs decision is construed in the light of its reasons, which should be weighed before applying for rectification.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Art. 69(1)
Rules of Procedure: Rules 118.5, 150.2, 211.1(d) and 353
Case law cited: Yealink (Xiamen) Network v Barco, Brussels Local Division, 21 March 2025 (the order whose rectification was sought)

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: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

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

claimantYealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd.13 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantYealink (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

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 demande de rectification est rejetée : l'ordonnance, lue avec ses motifs, met déjà les frais à la charge de Barco dans la limite du plafond de 112 000 € et ne comporte aucune erreur matérielle.
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 Technology (CFI, 21 March 2025) cited in this record

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) · 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.