UPC_CFI_582/2024

METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MAKING FUNCTIONAL DEVICES AVAILALBLE TO PARTICIPANTS OF MEETINGS

Provisional measuresProvisional MeasuresBrussels LDProvisional measuresCase Closed

Overview Decisions Reasoning Citations Documents Timeline

Plain-English summary

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.

Accepted arguments

What the court agreed with — by party.

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 RoP
Note: 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) UPCA
Note: 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) UPCA
Note: 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 RoP
Note: Court dismissed without reaching infringement or validity merits, consistent with procedural economy of provisional measures proceedings.

Rejected arguments

What the court did not agree with — and why.

Barco's delay in filing was not unreasonable given complexity of infringement analysis
Claimant
Reason: 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 RoP
Reason: 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.

Key legal principles

Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.

Urgency for provisional measures: delay in filing after knowledge of infringement may defeat urgency Conditions for provisional measures are cumulative; lack of urgency alone defeats the application Brussels I Regulation amendments govern international jurisdiction only, not internal UPC territorial competence under Art. 33 UPCA Art. 33(1) UPCA lists alternative competences without hierarchical preference between sub-paragraphs (a) and (b)Earliest UPC jurisdiction date is the grant date of the European Patent, not the unitary effect registration date R. 353 RoP rectification grounds are exhaustive: only clerical errors, miscalculations, and obvious omissions qualify A decision must be read as a whole including its reasoning; the substantive operative part and the motivational grounds are equally part of the order

Browse other cases on this principle.