Barco, Inc. et al. v. Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al.

This case involves Barco, Inc. and Barco NV (collectively "Barco") as plaintiffs, against Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. (collectively "Yealink") as defendants. Barco NV is a Belgian multinational technology company specializing in visualization, collaboration, and networking solutions for enterprise, healthcare, and entertainment markets. They are known for products such as their ClickShare wireless collaboration tools. Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. is a China-based company that develops and sells enterprise communication terminal equipment, including video conferencing systems, conference phones, and SIP phones. Both companies are considered global competitors in the audio-visual (AV) sector and major manufacturers of video conferencing equipment.

The core of the dispute centers on allegations of patent infringement related to wireless presentation and conferencing technology. The asserted patent in this particular case is US11422951. While the exact technical sketch of US11422951 isn't detailed in the search results, it falls under Barco's portfolio of patents protecting its wireless collaboration solutions, such as their ClickShare product. Barco claims that Yealink's wireless presentation products, specifically the WPP20 and WPP30 devices, infringe upon their patents. Yealink admitted to infringing six of Barco ClickShare's patents related to wireless presentation between May 2023 and April 2024.

The case is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, before Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. The Eastern District of Texas is a well-known and active venue for patent litigation, often chosen by plaintiffs for its reputation in patent disputes. This particular case is notable as it involves two significant players in the audio-visual and unified communications markets. Barco has actively defended its intellectual property, holding over 110 patents for its ClickShare innovations. While Yealink admitted to infringement for a period, a jury awarded Barco over $900,000 in damages for one year of infringing sales, but found no ongoing infringement or willful infringement by Yealink. This outcome led to the continued removal of Yealink's WPP20 and WPP30 devices from the US market. Parallel proceedings in the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in Europe saw Barco's application for a preliminary injunction against Yealink dismissed due to a lack of urgency.

Here's a detailed summary of the key legal developments and outcomes for Barco, Inc. et al. v. Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. (2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP).

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint Filed (2023-11-14): Barco, Inc. and Barco NV (collectively, "Barco") initiated the lawsuit against Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. ("Yealink") for patent infringement. The original complaint asserted infringement of several patents, including US11422951.
• Answer & Counterclaims: While specific dates for Yealink's initial answer and counterclaims are not immediately available from the provided snippets, court documents indicate that Yealink filed a Second Amended Answer, in which it admitted infringement of a single claim of each asserted patent. This was followed by a Third Amended Answer, where Yealink admitted to infringement of all asserted claims, to avoid technical discovery. However, Yealink maintained that these admissions did not affect the invalidity of Barco's asserted claims and disputed admitting to ongoing induced infringement.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance

• Motions to Compel Discovery: After Yealink's initial admissions of infringement of only a subset of claims, the Court found this insufficient to obviate the need for technical discovery, especially given that the admitted claims were subject to IPR proceedings. Barco filed a second motion to compel liability discovery, which led to Yealink's proposal to file a Third Amended Answer admitting infringement of all asserted claims.
• Motions to Strike Expert Opinion (October 14, 2025): The Court addressed several Daubert motions and motions to exclude expert opinions.
  • A motion filed by Yealink to strike the expert opinion of Michael C. Brogioli was granted in part and denied in part on October 13, 2025.
  • A motion filed by Yealink to exclude the expert opinion of William B. Scally was denied on October 13, 2025. However, a subsequent Memorandum Order on November 10, 2025, amended the previous order, clarifying that while Mr. Scally's report sections need not be stricken, it was improper for Mr. Scally or Plaintiffs' counsel and other witnesses to refer to a pre-suit Global License Offer in front of the jury, as it violated Federal Rule of Evidence 408 regarding settlement negotiations.
  • A motion filed by Barco to strike Dr. Almeroth's opinions was granted in part and denied in part on October 13, 2025, specifically granting the motion as to paragraphs 114 to 137 of Dr. Almeroth's opinions.
• Memorandum Order on Indirect Infringement (August 22, 2025): The Court issued a Memorandum Order clarifying that ongoing indirect infringement by Yealink remained a live issue for trial, despite Yealink's admissions of infringement. This decision followed supplemental briefs from both parties after a dispute at the Pretrial Conference on August 5, 2025.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

• Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (December 17, 2024): Barco and Yealink submitted their Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, outlining proposed constructions for terms across the six asserted patents, including US11422951. Barco argued that no construction was necessary for terms in claims Yealink had already admitted infringing, while Yealink sought construction for these terms.
• Claim Construction Hearing (March 11, 2025): A claim construction hearing was scheduled for March 11, 2025, to address the disputed terms. The specific outcome (Markman order) is not detailed in the provided snippets.
• Expert Declaration for Claim Construction (January 28, 2025): Barco's expert, Michael C. Brogioli, Ph.D., submitted an expert declaration regarding claim construction, asserting that no construction was necessary for terms in claims Yealink admitted infringing.

4. Discovery Milestones

• Beyond the motions to compel and strike expert opinions, a deposition of Dr. Kevin Almeroth was noted in the case, among others, with his participation in the Barco v. Yealink case from June 2024.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

• Jury Selection Scheduled (November 17, 2025): The Court notified the parties that jury selection was scheduled for November 17, 2025.
• Trial and Verdict (Prior to January 20, 2026): The case proceeded to trial and a jury returned a verdict. The jury awarded Barco $907,360 as a lump-sum royalty for Yealink's past infringement. This verdict occurred before January 20, 2026.
• Judgment: A document filed on January 20, 2026, refers to the jury's verdict awarding Barco damages for past infringement.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal – Present Posture

• The case is currently active. While a jury verdict for past infringement has been rendered, the ongoing indirect infringement issues and other potential post-trial motions or appeals are not definitively resolved by the provided snippets.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

• IPR Petitions Filed (June 2024 - Present): Yealink Network Technology Co., LTD filed several Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions against Barco N.V. concerning some of the asserted patents, including US11422951 (IPR2024-01439). Other related IPRs against Barco N.V. include IPR2024-01436 (US10762002), IPR2024-01437 (US11403237), IPR2024-01438 (US11258676), IPR2025-00491 (US10684972), IPR2025-00597 (US11966346), and IPR2025-00598 (US11966347). These IPR proceedings were ongoing as of June 2024. The existence of these IPRs was a factor in the Court's decision regarding the necessity of technical discovery, as the Court noted that all claims Yealink initially admitted infringing were subject to IPR proceedings.

Here is the counsel of record representing the plaintiffs, Barco, Inc. and Barco NV, in the case Barco, Inc. et al. v. Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. (Case No. 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP):

K&L Gates LLP

• Christopher Centurelli

  • Role: Lead Counsel (pro hac vice)
  • Firm & Office Location: K&L Gates LLP, Boston, MA.
  • Relevant Experience: Christopher Centurelli is a partner at K&L Gates LLP and focuses on intellectual property litigation, including patent, trade secret, trademark, and copyright matters. His practice also involves patent prosecution and counseling, due diligence, and licensing. He has represented clients in various technology sectors, including software, electronics, medical devices, and clean energy.

• Anna E. L'Hommedieu

  • Role: Counsel (pro hac vice)
  • Firm & Office Location: K&L Gates LLP, Boston, MA.
  • Relevant Experience: Anna L'Hommedieu is a partner at K&L Gates LLP with experience in intellectual property litigation, including patent and trade secret disputes. She has represented clients across a range of technologies, including software, telecommunications, and medical devices.

• Joshua N. Andrews

  • Role: Counsel (pro hac vice)
  • Firm & Office Location: K&L Gates LLP, Boston, MA.
  • Relevant Experience: Joshua Andrews is a partner at K&L Gates LLP focusing on patent litigation and other intellectual property matters. He has experience in complex technology cases and has represented both plaintiffs and defendants in district courts and before the PTAB.

• Erik J. Halverson

  • Role: Local Counsel (admitted to practice before the Eastern District of Texas)
  • Firm & Office Location: K&L Gates LLP, San Francisco, CA.
  • Relevant Experience: Erik Halverson is a partner at K&L Gates LLP whose practice includes patent litigation, particularly in federal courts. He has represented technology companies in a variety of patent disputes, often serving as local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas due to his admission to practice there.

Counsel of Record for Defendant(s) Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd.

The defendants, Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd., are represented by attorneys from Dentons US LLP, with additional support mentioned in related proceedings.

Here is a breakdown of the identified counsel:

• Stephen Yang

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Partner)
  • Firm: Dentons US LLP, Dallas, TX
  • Experience Note: Led the Intellectual Property and Technology team that secured a jury trial victory for Yealink against Barco, Inc. and successfully invalidated four of six asserted patents in inter partes review proceedings.

• Victor Johnson

  • Role: Partner
  • Firm: Dentons US LLP, Dallas, TX
  • Experience Note: Served as a lead partner in the jury trial team that defended Yealink against Barco, Inc.'s patent infringement claims.

• Forrest Gothia

  • Role: Managing Associate / Associate
  • Firm: Dentons US LLP, Dallas, TX
  • Experience Note: Made key contributions to both the jury trial and the Patent Office proceedings for Yealink against Barco.

• Haley Eastham

  • Role: Senior Managing Associate / Associate
  • Firm: Dentons US LLP, Dallas, TX
  • Experience Note: Provided key contributions to the jury trial defense of Yealink in the patent infringement case.

• Kevin Greenleaf

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Dentons US LLP
  • Experience Note: Led Patent Office proceedings for Yealink and provided additional support in the patent infringement lawsuit.

• Tim Bickham

  • Role: Partner
  • Firm: Dentons US LLP
  • Experience Note: Provided additional support in the patent infringement lawsuit for Yealink.

• Reid Ashinoff

  • Role: Litigation Partner
  • Firm: Dentons US LLP
  • Experience Note: Provided pivotal trial support in the patent infringement case for Yealink.

While other attorneys with similar names were found in general patent litigation contexts, the direct connection to Yealink in this specific case and related PTAB actions overwhelmingly points to the Dentons team. No other firms were definitively identified as counsel of record for the defendants in this specific district court case based on the provided search results.I have identified counsel associated with Yealink in the referenced Barco litigation and related PTAB actions from the search results. Now I need to consolidate this information and verify their specific roles in the district court case where possible.

Updated plan:
Confirm which of the Dentons attorneys are explicitly listed as counsel of record for Yealink in the district court case 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP.
For each confirmed attorney, verify their specific role, firm, office location, and gather a one-line note on relevant patent litigation experience.
Explicitly state if any identified counsel from the search results are not confirmed as counsel of record in the district court case.
Present the final list of counsel for the defendant(s).### Counsel of Record for Defendant(s) Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al.

The defendants, Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd., are represented by attorneys primarily from Dentons US LLP. The following individuals have been identified as counsel involved in the defense of Yealink in this patent infringement case and related proceedings:

• Stephen Yang

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Partner)
  • Firm: Dentons US LLP, Dallas, TX
  • Experience Note: Led the Intellectual Property and Technology team for Yealink, achieving a jury verdict against Barco in federal court and successfully invalidating several asserted patents in inter partes review proceedings.

• Victor Johnson

  • Role: Partner
  • Firm: Dentons US LLP, Dallas, TX
  • Experience Note: Served as a lead partner in the jury trial team defending Yealink in the patent infringement lawsuit.

• Forrest Gothia

  • Role: Managing Associate
  • Firm: Dentons US LLP, Dallas, TX
  • Experience Note: Made key contributions to both the jury trial and the Patent Office proceedings related to Yealink's defense against Barco.

• Haley Eastham

  • Role: Senior Managing Associate
  • Firm: Dentons US LLP, Dallas, TX
  • Experience Note: Provided key contributions to the jury trial defense in the patent infringement case for Yealink.

• Kevin Greenleaf

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Dentons US LLP
  • Experience Note: Led Patent Office proceedings for Yealink and provided additional support in the district court patent infringement lawsuit.

• Tim Bickham

  • Role: Partner
  • Firm: Dentons US LLP
  • Experience Note: Provided additional support in the patent infringement lawsuit for Yealink.

• Reid Ashinoff

  • Role: Litigation Partner
  • Firm: Dentons US LLP
  • Experience Note: Provided pivotal trial support to the Dentons team defending Yealink.

While a comprehensive list of all appearing counsel directly from the district court docket was not retrieved in full detail during the search, the Dentons press releases explicitly name these attorneys as representing Yealink in "Barco, Inc. v. Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00521 (E.D. Tex.)" and related Patent Office actions, confirming their roles in the ongoing dispute. No other law firms or attorneys outside of Dentons were definitively identified as counsel of record for the defendants in this specific district court case.