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

SEP (unclear)
Case details
Status
—
Action
Procedural application
Category
Case Management Orders
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Ruud van der Velden (Hogan Lovells Int. LLP); Stefan Dusault (Hogan Lovells Int. LLP); Floris Patijn (Hogan Lovells Int. LLP); Django Wagenaer (Hogan Lovells Int. LLP)
Respondents
Reps: Christian Dekoninck (Taylor Wessing); Wim Maas (Taylor Wessing); Laura Coucke (Taylor Wessing); Adam Lybaert (Taylor Wessing)
Division
—
Judges
Technology
Computing & AI
Language
—
First decided
May 7, 2026
Decisions
  • 2026-05-07
    Costs onlyGeneric Order

    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.

    Legal issues:Cost allocation under R. 150 RoP following dismissed preliminary injunction proceedingsDefinition of 'successful party' versus 'partly successful party' under Art. 69.1 UPCAWhether BARCO's right to seek cost compensation for dismissed competence challenges was time-barredWaiver of rights requires explicit statement — prior admission of successful party status does not waive cost compensation rightsRecoverability of simultaneous interpretation costs under R. 109.4 / R. 109.5 RoPApplication and potential reduction of recoverable costs ceiling for PI appeal proceedings under Art. 69(2) UPCADouble-counting / 'double-up' argument: ceiling cannot be reduced for partial success when BARCO also claims set-off costs against that ceilingWeight 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