UPC CFI 185/2026

At the UPC: Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. (9 cases)·Barco N.V. (9 cases)

• 2026-10-19
  Counter claim for revocationPublic

  Summary: Procedural Order 2 of the Brussels Local Division (Judge-Rapporteur) after the interim conference: sets the value of the infringement action at EUR 1 million and the counterclaim at EUR 1.5 million (total EUR 2.5 million), asks the parties to report by 28 October 2026 on any agreement on recoverable costs, and confirms the oral hearing on 3 November 2026 with a timeframe. No substantive ruling.

  Show the legal issues (4)

  • Case value (R. 105.5 RoP interim conference follow-up)
  • Recoverable costs agreement
  • Scheduling of oral hearing and pleading timeframe
  • Effect of Court of Appeal confirmation of refusal of leave to amend (AR6)
• 2026-09-14
  Counter claim for revocationPublic

  Summary: Brussels Local Division procedural order under R. 105.5 RoP (judge-rapporteur Granata, 14 Sep 2026) after the interim conference in BARCO NV v YEALINK (Xiamen) Network Technology and YEALINK (Europe) Network Technology (EP 3 732 827; infringement action UPC_CFI_806/2025 and counterclaim for revocation UPC_CFI_185/2026): the value is set at EUR 1 million for the infringement action and EUR 1.5 million for the counterclaim (EUR 2.5 million total), the parties must report any agreement on recoverable costs by 28 Oct 2026, and the oral hearing of 3 Nov 2026 is maintained or rescheduled depending on the Court of Appeal's ruling on the pending appeal against the order of 17 Aug 2026.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • Interim conference order under R. 105 RoP
  • Value of a counterclaim for revocation: infringement value plus up to 50% under the court-fee guidelines
  • Scheduling of the oral hearing pending an appeal
• 2026-08-17
  Counter claim for revocationPublic

  Summary: Procedural order dismissing BARCO's application for leave to amend the patent under R. 30.2 and R. 263 RoP, on the ground that the amendment could have been foreseen from the outset and that the applicant had not shown the required connection to the defendant's invalidity arguments. Leave to appeal granted.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • leave to change or amend the case (R. 263 RoP)
  • application to amend the patent (R. 30 RoP)
  • procedural efficiency