UPC CFI 582/2024
Oct 2, 2024·EP3732827 Unitary patent · METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MAKING FUNCTIONAL DEVICES AVAILALBLE TO PARTICIPANTS OF MEETINGS
- Case details
- StatusCase ClosedActionProvisional measuresCategoryProvisional measures
- Parties
- Claimants
- Barco N.V.Operating co.
Representatives- Christian Dekoninck-Taylor Wessing
- Wim Maas-Taylor Wessing
- Laura Coucke-Taylor Wessing
Respondents- Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd.Operating co.
- Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.Operating co.
Representatives- Ruud van der Velden-Hogan Lovells International LLP
- Division
- Brussels LD
- Technology
- Electrical engineeringDigital communication
- Language
- English
- EPO Opposition
- Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co., Ltd.Admissible2025-02-10
- Chen, WeiHaoAdmissible2025-03-11
- Yilin, JinAdmissible2025-03-12
- Kindermann GmbHAdmissible2025-03-12
| Preliminary injunction granted | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 54% (38/70) | 124 |
| Brussels LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Samuel Granata | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Mélanie Bessaud | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Petri Rinkinen | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Steven Kitchen | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Barco N.V. (9 cases)·Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. (9 cases)
This dispute contains 7 other proceedings
UPC CoA 145/2026·UPC CoA 84/2026·UPC CFI 185/2026·UPC CFI 806/2025·UPC CoA 317/2025 and 2 more
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: Brussels LD·2024
- 2025-05-08
Summary: The Brussels Local Division dismissed Yealink's application for rectification (R. 353 RoP) of the Final Order of 21 March 2025, which had dismissed Barco's application for provisional measures and ordered Barco to pay Yealink's costs up to the EUR 112,000 ceiling. Yealink sought to clarify the order by adding the word 'interim' to the costs award, but the court found no clerical error, miscalculation or obvious omission warranting rectification. The court confirmed that the costs award of EUR 112,000 against Barco (the unsuccessful party in the provisional measures) was already clearly an interim award on the face of the Final Order.
Show the legal issues (4)
- Rectification of order (R. 353 RoP)
- Clerical errors, miscalculations and obvious omissions
- Interim award of costs (R. 150(2) RoP)
- Application for rectification dismissed
- 2025-03-21Application for provisional measuresPublic
Summary: The Local Division Brussels dismissed Barco's application for provisional measures against Yealink due to lack of urgency. Barco had waited an unreasonably long period before filing, having been aware of the allegedly infringing products since at least May 2023. Barco was ordered to pay Yealink's costs up to EUR 112,000. Dispute value set at EUR 1,000,000.
Show the legal issues (5)
- Urgency for provisional measures (Rule 211.4 RoP)
- Territorial competence (Article 33 UPCA)
- Preliminary objection timing (Rule 19(1) RoP)
- Brussels I Regulation and UPCA jurisdiction
- UPC date of filing requirements
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-06-07 | Not public |
| Closing Workflow | 2025-06-07 | Public |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-06-07 | Not public |
| Closing Workflow | 2025-06-07 | Public |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-06-07 | Not public |
| Closing Workflow | 2025-06-07 | Public |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-06-07 | Not public |
| Closing Workflow | 2025-06-07 | Public |
| Headnote-and-Keywords | 2025-05-08 | Not public |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-05-08 | Not public |
Barco NV applied to the Brussels Local Division for provisional measures against Yealink entities based on EP 3 732 827 (method for making functional devices available to meeting participants). The court dismissed the application solely on the ground of lack of urgency, finding that Barco had been aware of the allegedly infringing products since at least May 2023 and its delay in filing until October 2024 was unreasonable. A subsequent application by Yealink to rectify the costs order by adding the word 'interim' was also dismissed as no clerical error existed.
Lack of urgency: Barco was aware of allegedly infringing products since at least May 2023 and failed to act promptly
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 62 UPCA; R. 206 RoPNote: Court found Barco knew of infringing devices since May 2023; objective earliest date for filing was June 2024; waiting until October 2024 was unreasonable.
LD Brussels has territorial competence to hear the provisional measures application
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 33(1) UPCANote: Court held Brussels LD competent; Brussels I Regulation amendments were directed only at international jurisdiction, not internal UPC territorial competence under Art. 33 UPCA.
Earliest date for UPC jurisdiction is date of grant of the European Patent, not date of registration of unitary effect
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 3(c) UPCA; Art. 32(1)(a)/(c) UPCANote: Court confirmed the relevant starting date for computing UPC jurisdiction is the grant date of the EP, not the later date of unitary effect registration.
Conditions for provisional measures are cumulative; failure on urgency alone is sufficient to dismiss without assessing other conditions
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 62 UPCA; R. 206 RoPNote: Court dismissed without reaching infringement or validity merits, consistent with procedural economy of provisional measures proceedings.
Barco's delay in filing was not unreasonable given complexity of infringement analysis
ClaimantReason: Barco itself admitted infringing products had been on the market for a long time and had been aware since at least May 2023; there was no justification for waiting until October 2024 to file.
Rectification of Final Order to add the word 'interim' to costs award was warranted under R. 353 RoP
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 353 RoPReason: No clerical error, miscalculation or obvious omission existed; the Final Order's reference to R. 150(2) RoP already made clear the costs award was interim; R. 353 grounds are exhaustive.
Browse other cases on this principle.