Yealink (Xiamen) Network v Barco (CoA, 28 November 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

The Court of Appeal dismisses Yealink’s cross-appeal (UPC_CoA_376/2025), which challenged the territorial competence of the Brussels Local Division, and, in the same order, the main appeal of Barco N.V. (UPC_CoA_317/2025) against the refusal of provisional measures for lack of urgency. It does, however, reduce the interim costs award made to Yealink at first instance. The order sets out several useful principles: the competence of the divisions under Art. 33 UPCA is a UPC internal matter, there is no hierarchy between points (a) and (b) of Art. 33(1) UPCA, Rule 19.5 RoP applies to provisional measures, and an interim costs award should generally not exceed half of the ceiling.

Facts and procedure

Barco owns EP 3 732 827, whose unitary effect was registered on 23 August 2024. After test purchases in Belgium on 29 August 2024, Barco applied on 2 October 2024 for provisional measures against Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V. By order of 21 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_582/2024), the Brussels Local Division held itself competent under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA, dismissed the application for lack of urgency and ordered Barco to bear the costs up to the ceiling of €112,000. Barco appealed on urgency. Yealink cross-appealed on competence and, conditionally, on the interim award. The oral hearing took place on 22 September 2025. The Court rules on neither validity nor infringement (paragraphs 15 and 91).

The applicable law

Art. 31 UPCA refers to Regulation 1215/2012 for international jurisdiction, while Art. 33 UPCA allocates cases between divisions. Urgency is assessed under Rule 211.4 RoP. Costs are governed by Art. 69 UPCA and Rules 150 et seq. RoP, and an interim award may be made in provisional measures proceedings.

Question

Is the local division of the place of alleged infringement competent where the defendants have no connection of their own with that state, and did a proprietor who waited for registration of unitary effect before acting show the required urgency?

Decision

On competence, Rule 19.5 RoP applies to provisional measures for reasons of efficiency (paragraph 31), but no referral is possible as Barco named no other division (paragraph 33). Competence under Art. 33 UPCA is a UPC internal matter, not directly governed by the case law on Art. 7(2) of Regulation 1215/2012 (paragraphs 47 and 52). There is no hierarchy between points (a) and (b) of Art. 33(1) (paragraph 58), connecting factors need not be shown for each defendant (paragraph 61), competence is assessed on a cursory review of the evidence (paragraph 65). The Belgian test purchases are not competence manipulation (paragraph 70) and Rule 303 RoP does not address competence (paragraph 73). On urgency, Barco knew of the products on 12 June 2024 and could have made its test purchase then and filed around 15 July 2024 (paragraphs 86 and 89), unitary effect could have been obtained within a few weeks (paragraph 85), and potential product changes do not as a rule justify delay (paragraph 90). Barco therefore did not act with the necessary urgency (paragraph 91). On costs, only the final outcome of the application matters (paragraph 95), an interim award at the level of the ceiling would make the Rule 150 procedure largely redundant (paragraph 98). The operative part replaces the first instance costs order with an interim award of €66,000, orders Barco to bear the costs of the appeal, including the application for suspensive effect, with an interim award of €66,000, and orders Yealink, jointly and severally, to bear those of the cross-appeal.

Key points for practice

• The claimant may choose between points (a) and (b) of Art. 33(1) UPCA, which are not ranked, and an offer accessible in the division’s state suffices without a defendant-by-defendant connection (paragraphs 58 to 61).
• The urgency clock starts when the products become known, not when unitary effect is registered (paragraphs 85 to 91).
• An interim costs award in favour of a defendant is possible but should not normally reach the ceiling (paragraphs 96 to 98).
• Practical point: the proprietor of a newly granted patent should arrange the request for unitary effect, test purchases and the application for provisional measures without delay.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 31, 32, 33, 62, 69 and 71

Rules of Procedure

Rules 19, 118, 150, 151, 206, 209, 211, 303 and 354

European Patent Convention

Art. 64(1)

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts 4, 7, 71 and 71a to 71d

Case law cited

AIM Sport v Supponor, Court of Appeal, 26 April 2024, Aylo v Dish, Court of Appeal, Mammut v Ortovox, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024, Meril v Edwards, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025.

Related decisions

• Barco v Yealink, 28 November 2025, the same order, published in main appeal UPC_CoA_317/2025.
• Yealink v Barco, 21 March 2025, the Brussels Local Division order under appeal.
• BARCO v Yealink, 4 December 2025, closure of the preliminary objection in the main action after 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.