Short Summary
Yealink has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Barco’s video‑conferencing patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and examiner error.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for inter‑partes review (IPR2025‑00491), Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. challenges U.S. Patent No. 10,684,972 owned by Barco N.V. The petition asserts that claims 1‑18 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over two distinct combinations of prior art: (1) Beel together with Dinka, the applicant‑admitted prior art (AAPA) and optionally Christison; and (2) Kaplan together with Van de Laar, AAPA and optionally Christison. It further contends that the examiner erred by not considering these references during prosecution and argues the Board should not deny institution under §§ 314(a) and 325(d). The petition seeks cancellation of all eighteen claims.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. vs Barco N.V. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Paragon 28, Inc.vsTREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.
Treace Medical announced a confidential settlement with Fusion Orthopedics, ending a lawsuit over its Lapiplasty bunion correction system. The agreement resolves multiple infringement and unfair competition claims.
Microsoft Corporation et al.vsX1 Discovery, Inc.
The PTAB denied X1 Discovery’s request for an extension to file Director Review briefs in three IPRs against Microsoft, finding no good cause. The Board emphasized that prior case law does not excuse delayed filings.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLCvsTecan Group AG
QIAGEN petitions the PTAB to invalidate Tecan’s ’012 patent covering nucleic‑acid enrichment for NGS, asserting that the claims are obvious over earlier academic publications. The petition argues the examiner relied on an unsupported declaration and that no secondary considerations exist.
Apple Inc.vsApex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple petitions the PTAB to invalidate Apex Beam's 5G beam‑failure and LBT‑failure recovery patent, arguing obviousness over Cirik, Wu, and InterDigital.
IPG Photonics CorporationvsTrumpf Laser- Und Systemtechnik GMBH
IPG Photonics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of TRUMPF’s ’054 laser‑fiber patent, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art fiber‑laser references. The petition outlines four grounds covering the full claim set.
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.