UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CFI 2265/2025

—·EP3732827: METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MAKING FUNCTIONAL DEVICES AVAILALBLE TO PARTICIPANTS OF MEETINGS

Follow
Case details
Status
—
Action
Procedural application
Category
Case Management Orders
Parties
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Brussels LD
Judges
Technology
Computing & AI
Language
—
First decided
May 7, 2026
Decisions
  • 2026-05-07
    Public

    Summary: The Judge-Rapporteur issued a cost decision (R. 150 RoP) following concluded preliminary injunction proceedings (UPC_CFI_582/2024 and UPC_CoA_317/2025 / UPC_CoA_376/2025), in which BARCO's PI requests had been dismissed for lack of urgency. BARCO was ordered to pay YEALINK a cost award covering legal representation (at a ceiling of €112,000 for first instance and €66,000 for appeal, reduced by BARCO's own costs for successfully defending the competence challenges) plus travel and hotel costs of €3,769.84; interpretation costs claimed by YEALINK were dismissed as non-recoverable under R. 109.5 RoP.

    Show the legal issues (8)
    • Cost allocation under R. 150 RoP following dismissed preliminary injunction proceedings
    • Definition of 'successful party' versus 'partly successful party' under Art. 69.1 UPCA
    • Whether BARCO's right to seek cost compensation for dismissed competence challenges was time-barred
    • Waiver of rights requires explicit statement — prior admission of successful party status does not waive cost compensation rights
    • Recoverability of simultaneous interpretation costs under R. 109.4 / R. 109.5 RoP
    • Application and potential reduction of recoverable costs ceiling for PI appeal proceedings under Art. 69(2) UPCA
    • Double-counting / 'double-up' argument: ceiling cannot be reduced for partial success when BARCO also claims set-off costs against that ceiling
    • Weight of statements made by counsel at oral hearings for cost assessment purposes
Documents
  • R.150_Signed_redacted.pdf2026-05-07EN
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • YEALINK is the successful party in the PI proceedings (PI requests dismissed for lack of urgency), entitling it to cost recovery under Art. 69.1 UPCA / R. 150 RoP

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69.1 UPCA; R. 150 RoP

  • The ceiling for first instance PI proceedings is €112,000, as accepted by BARCO before the LD Brussels and confirmed by the Court of Appeal

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 1(4) Administrative Committee Ceilings Decision; R. 152 RoP

  • BARCO's request for cost compensation for successfully defending YEALINK's competence challenges was not time-barred, because the R. 151 RoP deadline runs from the merits decision (not yet issued), given that merits proceedings are pending

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 150.1, R. 151 RoP; Art. 41(3) UPCA

  • BARCO is entitled to claim costs for defending dismissed competence challenges as a defence/set-off in the cost proceedings, without needing to file a separate application

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 150, R. 151 RoP; Art. 41(3) UPCA; RoP Preamble 4

  • Travel and hotel costs are recoverable as claimed since BARCO put forward no substantive argument to exclude them

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 150 RoP
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Simultaneous interpretation costs incurred by YEALINK are recoverable as costs of the proceedings

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 109.4, R. 109.5 RoP — costs borne solely by the engaging party

  • The ceiling should be set at €112,000 for both instances combined (i.e., no separate ceiling for the appeal)

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69(2) UPCA; Administrative Committee Ceilings Decision

  • YEALINK's statement at the Court of Appeal oral hearing that BARCO's infringement analysis 'likely took less than an hour' should reduce the reasonableness of YEALINK's claimed representation costs

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69.1 UPCA — reasonable and proportionate costs

  • BARCO's admission that YEALINK was the 'successful party' in first instance R. 353 RoP proceedings constituted a waiver of its right to seek cost compensation for the dismissed competence challenge

    ClaimantLegal basis: General principle: waiver requires explicit statement

  • The ceiling for PI appeal proceedings should be reduced on account of YEALINK's partial success (dismissed competence cross-appeal), applying Art. 1(4) Ceilings Decision proportionately

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 152.2 RoP; Art. 1(4) Ceilings Decision — court held this would create a 'double-up' problem given BARCO's own set-off claim