Short Summary
This is a procedural order issued by the Judge-Rapporteur of the UPC Local Division Brussels following an interim conference in proceedings concerning EP 3 732 827. The court set the total value of the proceedings at €2.5 million (€1 million for the infringement action and €1.5 million for the counterclaim for revocation). The order also addressed procedural arrangements for the upcoming oral hearing scheduled for 3 November 2026, including contingencies related to BARCO's pending appeal against a prior procedural order dated 17 August 2026.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order was issued by Judge-Rapporteur Samuel Granata of the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court on 14 September 2026, in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 732 827 owned by BARCO NV. The order follows an interim conference held via video conference on 8 September 2026, in accordance with Rule 105 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP). The proceedings consist of two related actions: UPC_CFI_806/2025 (the main infringement action brought by BARCO against Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV) and UPC_CFI_185/2026 (the counterclaim for revocation brought by the Yealink entities). BARCO is represented by Taylor Wessing, while the Yealink entities are represented by Hogan Lovells International LLP.
A significant issue discussed during the interim conference was the situation arising from BARCO's appeal of the Court's Procedural Order dated 17 August 2026. In that prior order, the Court had dismissed BARCO's Application for Leave to Amend the Patent pursuant to Rules 30.2 and 263 RoP, meaning that Auxiliary Request 6 (AR6) was not permitted in the UPC proceedings, although it was permitted in the EPO opposition proceedings. The appeal is currently pending before the Court of Appeal (CoA).
Regarding the value of the case, BARCO valued the infringement action at €1 million, which the Judge-Rapporteur accepted. For the counterclaim for revocation, BARCO argued the same value should apply, while Yealink argued for a 50% increase, leading to €1.5 million. The Judge-Rapporteur set the value of the counterclaim at €1.5 million, resulting in a total value of €2.5 million. The reasoning relied on the Guidelines for the determination of court fees and recoverable costs, which state that the value of a revocation counterclaim may be assumed to be equal to the value of the infringement action plus up to 50%. The Judge-Rapporteur found Yealink's argument convincing that the validity issue exceeds the value of the infringement action, particularly given the economic value for the parties and the existence of opposition proceedings involving other parties.
The order also addressed the timeframe for the oral hearing scheduled for 3 November 2026, with detailed guidelines for the parties' presentations on validity and infringement, including time allocations for each party. The court urged the parties to reach an agreement on recoverable costs by 28 October 2026. Additionally, the order set out contingencies depending on the outcome of the pending appeal: if the CoA confirms the prior procedural order before 3 November 2026, the oral hearing date is maintained; if the CoA overturns it, a follow-up interim conference will be organized within two working days; and if no final order is issued by 27 October 2026, a follow-up interim conference will be held on 28 October 2026 to discuss whether the oral hearing should be postponed. A backup date for the oral hearing was reserved for 20 January 2027 if needed.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Brussels - Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Barco NV vs Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. & Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.