Yealink (Xiamen) Network v Barco (CoA, UPC_CoA_84/2026, 3 November 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 4 November 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 3 November 2026 (UPC_CoA_84/2026), the standing judge of the Court of Appeal grants Yealink partial leave to appeal the cost decision of the Brussels Local Division of 7 May 2026. Leave is limited to the Division’s deduction of the costs incurred by Barco on Yealink’s jurisdictional objections. The rest of the application fails for want of a manifest error that would probably have changed the outcome.

Facts and procedure

Barco had applied for provisional measures against Yealink before the Brussels Local Division (UPC_CFI_582/2024). On 21 March 2025, the Division dismissed Yealink’s preliminary objection and Barco’s application and ordered Barco to bear the costs. On 28 November 2025, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal for lack of urgency, awarded Yealink EUR 66,000 as an interim award of first-instance costs and allocated the appeal costs. In the meantime, Barco had brought an action on the merits on 29 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_806/2025).

On Yealink’s application for a cost decision covering both instances, the Brussels Division on 7 May 2026 reduced the applicable ceiling on appeal to EUR 66,000, found the hours claimed for the appeal excessive and deducted from the amounts due to Yealink the costs Barco incurred on the jurisdictional issues.

Question

Under what conditions is leave to appeal a cost decision (Rule 221 RoP) granted, and can cost determination proceedings revisit the allocation of costs?

Decision

The judge recalls that the application for leave must itself set out why the appeal should be heard, and that a general reference to the written pleadings is not sufficient. Leave requires either a manifest error which would probably have changed the decision, or a fundamental question of law whose review is necessary to ensure a consistent application of the law. As Yealink relied only on manifest error, the review is confined to that ground.

The judge first notes that Yealink’s application for a cost decision was currently inadmissible. Barco’s action on the merits triggered the Rule 151 period running from the decision on the merits, which has not yet been given (Hanshow v VusionGroup).

The reduction of the ceiling rested on a misreading of the Administrative Committee guidelines. Guideline II.5(b) allows the value of the proceedings, not the ceiling, to be reduced to 66%, and a value of EUR 660,000 still falls under the EUR 112,000 ceiling. The error is manifest but not outcome-determinative, since the Division also found unreasonable a number of appeal hours almost identical to the first instance, a finding Yealink did not effectively challenge. The ceiling is only a safety net and does not entitle a party to reimbursement up to its amount.

The deduction of Barco’s costs, by contrast, is manifestly wrong. The Rule 151 time limit also applies to a costs claim raised by way of defence, and Barco could no more obtain a cost determination before the decision on the merits. Above all, cost allocation had been finally decided by the appeal order of 28 November 2025, and Rules 150 et seq. only concern the determination of amounts. Barco must file its response by 18 November 2026, a hearing being contemplated on 15 December 2026, and EUR 2,000 of court fees are reimbursed to Yealink.

Key points for practice

• An application for leave to appeal a cost decision must address the conditions for leave, not merely the merits of the appeal.
• Where provisional measures are followed by an action on the merits, cost determination waits for the decision on the merits, for claimant and defendant alike.
• Cost determination proceedings do not reopen the allocation of costs decided in the order that closes the proceedings.
• Exceeding the ceiling does not relieve a party from showing that the hours spent on appeal were reasonable and proportionate.

Provisions applied

UPC Agreement

Articles 69(1) and 76(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 118.5, 150, 151, 152, 157 and 221

Case law cited

Motorola v Ericsson (Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_489/2024, 6 September 2024), Centripetal v Keysight (Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_805/2025, 1 September 2025), Hanshow v VusionGroup (Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_618/2024, 6 June 2025), Total Semiconductor v Texas Instruments (Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_651/2024, 27 November 2024).

Related decisions

• Court of Appeal, 28 November 2025, Yealink v Barco: appeal order on provisional measures and cost allocation
• Brussels Local Division, 7 May 2026, Yealink v Barco: cost decision under appeal
• Brussels Local Division, 19 October 2026, Barco v Yealink: action on the merits, hearing preparation

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 4 November 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.