Barco v Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology (CFI, 21 March 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 21 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_582/2024, ORD_68979/2024), the Brussels Local Division (Judges Granata, presiding and rapporteur, Rinkinen, Bessaud and Kitchen, technically qualified) held that it was competent but dismissed, for lack of urgency, Barco’s application for provisional measures against Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology based on EP 3 732 827. For urgency, time runs from grant of the European patent, not from registration of unitary effect. A delay of about two and a half months sufficed to defeat the application.

Facts and procedure

The patent, filed on 21 December 2018 and granted on 12 June 2024, with unitary effect registered on 23 August 2024, protects a method, a system and a computer program product for wireless meeting rooms (claims 1, 12 and 13). Barco targeted the MeetingBar A20, RoomCast and WPP30 products. It had sent a warning letter on 17 May 2023 and sued Yealink’s US subsidiaries in the Eastern District of Texas on 14 November 2023, on patents that Yealink says are not in the family of the patent in suit (paragraphs 15 and 16). The application, filed on 2 October 2024, was met by Yealink’s objection of 17 December 2024, including a preliminary objection to territorial competence. The hearing took place on 14 February 2025.

The applicable law

Provisional measures are governed by Article 62 UPCA and Rules 206 and 211. The UPC’s international jurisdiction derives from Articles 71b and 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 and Article 32(1)(a) UPCA, the internal competence of the divisions is set by Article 33(1). Urgency is assessed objectively, and the applicant must state the specific date on which it became aware of the infringement.

Question

Is a preliminary objection admissible in provisional measures proceedings, is the Brussels Division competent, and from when is urgency assessed for a European patent later given unitary effect?

Decision

Rule 19.1(b) does not as such apply to provisional measures, which follow an accelerated timetable in which the court sets a time limit for any objection (Rule 209.1), the objection was nonetheless admissible, since the parties had agreed a six-week period for any objection, including preliminary ones, confirmed by order (paragraphs 33 and 34). International jurisdiction was not disputed (paragraphs 36 to 39). The two criteria in Article 33(1) are alternatives, with no general rule and exception, so the CJEU case law on Article 7(2) applies less restrictively (paragraphs 40 to 43), devices ordered from and delivered to Belgium, and offered to Belgian customers through a website and a Benelux account manager, establish competence, whether infringement was actually committed being a matter for the merits (paragraph 46), and Melzer was distinguished because both defendants were alleged to have acted in Belgium (paragraphs 47 and 48).

On urgency, the requirements being cumulative, failure on one disposes of the application (paragraph 54). An applicant that acted negligently or hesitated lacks urgency (paragraph 55). Barco argued that time ran from registration of unitary effect. The Division held that the objective earliest date is grant, since a European patent can be enforced from that day, that Barco knew of the products by 12 June 2024 at the latest and that proceedings could reasonably have been brought by about 15 July 2024. The roughly two and a half months until 2 October 2024 sufficed to rule out urgency, all the more as Barco had earlier information (paragraphs 57 and 58). The other requirements were not examined (paragraph 59). Barco bears Yealink’s costs up to the ceiling of EUR 112,000, and the value of the dispute was set at EUR 1,000,000 (paragraphs 60 to 62).

Key points for practice

• For a European patent later given unitary effect, urgency is measured from grant, not from registration of unitary effect.
• A delay of about two and a half months after the date by which proceedings could have been brought was enough to exclude urgency.
• Online offers and deliveries in the state of the division suffice to found its competence under Article 33(1)(a) UPCA.
• Practical point: a proprietor already aware of the products should prepare its application before grant and act within weeks of it.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 32(1)(a), 33(1)(a) and (b), 62, 69(1) and 73

Rules of Procedure

Rules 19.1(b), 118(5), 150(2), 206, 209.1, 211 and 220.1

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts 4(1), 7(2), 71a and 71b

Case law cited

Aylo Freesites v DISH, Court of Appeal, 3 September 2024, Abbott Diabetes Care v Sibio, Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_382/2024), Ericsson v ASUSTeK, Lisbon Local Division, 15 October 2024, Düsseldorf Local Division, 31 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_463/2023), Hamburg Local Division, 18 December 2024 (UPC_CFI_525/2024)

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.