UPC_CFI_185/2026

Decisions and documents (3)

• 2026-10-19procedural

  Claimant:

  BARCO NV

  Defendants:

  YEALINK (EUROPE) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY BV; YEALINK (XIAMEN) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd.

  • Panel: Samuel Granata🔒 Unlock Official PDF
• 2026-09-14procedural

  Claimant:

  BARCO NV

  Defendants:

  YEALINK (EUROPE) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY BV; YEALINK (XIAMEN) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd.

  Counter claim for revocation. Document: Order_R.105RoP_UPC_CFI_806-2025-UPC_CFI_185-2026_Signed.pdf. Case page: https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/184272

  • Panel: Samuel Granata🔒 Unlock Official PDF
• 2026-08-17procedural

  Applicants:

  YEALINK (EUROPE) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY BV; YEALINK (XIAMEN) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd.

  Respondent:

  BARCO NV

  1. Granting an application to change or amend the case cannot be allowed if the amendment could have been foreseen from the outset of the proceedings. Granting such an application later in the proceedings would mean allowing the applicant to change its strategy. 2. That the applicant of an application to change or amend the case (in particular, requesting to allow new auxiliary requests to align them with proceedings before the EPO) may have to initiate new UPC proceedings, taking into consideration the auxiliary requests introduced before the Opposition Division or Board of Appeal of the EPO but not allowed by the Court (UPC), might indeed be the case. The fact that the applicant itself did not abide by the principles of procedural efficiency cannot be invoked by that same applicant as a reason to allow to change or amend the case, taking into consideration the stage of the proceedings. 3. The applicant of an application to change or amend the case (in particular requesting to allow new auxiliary requests in the proceedings) must convince the Court of the “connection” between the changes to be made in the auxiliary requests and the specific arguments of the Defendant regarding the invalidity of the Patent.

  • Panel: Samuel Granata🔒 Unlock Official PDF