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

This patent infringement lawsuit pits Barco, Inc., a Belgian multinational technology company specializing in visualization, collaboration, and networking solutions, against Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and its parent company, Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd., a China-based provider of unified communication and collaboration solutions. Barco is an operating company actively defending its intellectual property related to its "ClickShare" wireless collaboration technology, while Yealink is also an operating company in the telecommunications sector. The core of the dispute centers on Yealink's WPP20 and WPP30 wireless presentation devices, which Barco alleges infringe its patents for wireless presentation and conferencing systems. Yealink admitted to infringing six of Barco's ClickShare patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,258,676, which broadly covers wireless collaboration solutions enabling users to seamlessly share content and conduct video conferences from their personal devices using meeting room equipment. Other asserted patents include 11,258,002, 11,528,832, 11,463,103, 11,394,237, and 11,258,951.

The case was filed on November 14, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, and is presided over by Judge Rodney Gilstrap, with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne handling various orders. This venue is particularly notable due to the Eastern District of Texas's long-standing reputation as a "patent litigation capital" known for its expedited trial schedules, plaintiff-friendly juries, and its judges' extensive experience with patent cases. This environment often encourages patent holders to pursue litigation to a verdict.

The litigation is notable as it represents an operating company (Barco) vigorously enforcing its patent portfolio for a flagship product (ClickShare) against a direct competitor (Yealink) in the competitive wireless collaboration market. A significant development occurred in December 2025, when a jury in the Eastern District of Texas awarded Barco over $900,000 in damages for one year of Yealink's infringing sales, following Yealink's admission of infringement on six ClickShare patents. This award also led to the continued removal of Yealink's WPP20 and WPP30 devices from the U.S. market. However, subsequent reports in April 2026 from Yealink's counsel, Dentons, indicated "follow-on victories" for Yealink, which reportedly further narrowed the scope and posture of the patent dispute after the initial jury trial. This suggests ongoing post-trial motions or potentially appellate activity clarifying the full extent of the verdict and its implications.

The patent infringement lawsuit, Barco, Inc. v. Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd., Case No. 2:23-cv-00521, was filed by Barco, Inc. and Barco NV (collectively, "Barco") against Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. (collectively, "Yealink") in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on November 14, 2023. The litigation involves multiple patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,258,676.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2023-11-14: Barco, Inc. and Barco NV filed the complaint against Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd., alleging infringement of several patents.
• Yealink filed a Second Amended Answer, initially admitting infringement of a single claim of each asserted patent.
• To avoid technical discovery, Yealink later proposed and was granted leave to file a Third Amended Answer, admitting to infringement of all asserted claims. Despite these admissions, a dispute arose regarding the extent of the admissions, specifically concerning ongoing indirect infringement.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance & Discovery Milestones:

• 2024-12-17: The parties submitted a P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction Statement. In this statement, Barco argued that no claim construction was necessary because Yealink had admitted infringement of each asserted patent. Yealink, however, sought construction for certain terms, arguing that its admission did not affect invalidity and that the terms were also present in dependent claims still at issue.
• 2025-08-05: A Pretrial Conference was held where the parties disputed whether Yealink had admitted to ongoing indirect infringement.
• 2025-08-22: Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne issued a Memorandum Order clarifying that ongoing indirect infringement by Yealink remained a live issue for trial. This order noted that Yealink's earlier admissions of infringement were made to avoid technical discovery.
• 2025-10-13: Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne issued several orders concerning expert testimony:
  • An order granting in part and denying in part Yealink's Daubert Motion and Motion to Strike Expert Opinion of Michael C. Brogioli.
  • A Memorandum Order denying Yealink's Daubert Motion and Motion to Exclude Expert Opinion of William B. Scally.
  • A Memorandum Order granting in part Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Dr. Almeroth's Opinions, specifically paragraphs 114 to 137, while denying the motion otherwise. The court noted that Yealink had represented that they would not bring any invalidity arguments, but Dr. Almeroth's opinions on the state of the art were permissible for damages apportionment.
• 2025-11-10: Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne issued a Memorandum Order amending a previous order regarding the expert opinion of William B. Scally. The amendment prohibited Mr. Scally or Plaintiffs' counsel and other witnesses from referring to a pre-suit Global License Offer in front of the jury, citing Federal Rule of Evidence 408 concerning settlement negotiations, although the sections of Mr. Scally's report relying on it did not need to be stricken.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• 2025-03-11: A claim construction hearing was scheduled to address the parties' proposed constructions for the six asserted patents. The specific outcomes or a formal Markman order from this hearing are not immediately available in the provided search results. However, Barco's position was that no claim construction was necessary due to Yealink's infringement admissions.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

• Yealink initiated inter partes review (IPR) proceedings against several of Barco's asserted patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,258,676 (IPR2024-01438). Other IPRs were also filed against U.S. Patent Nos. 10,762,002 (IPR2024-01436), 11,403,237 (IPR2024-01437), and 11,422,951 (IPR2024-01439), among others. The existence and status of these IPRs were noted in the district court filings, particularly when discussing Yealink's admissions of infringement. The current status or outcomes of these specific IPRs are not detailed in the provided search results beyond their initiation.

Final Disposition or Present Posture:

• As of the current date (June 17, 2026), the case remains ongoing in the Texas Eastern District Court. The recent orders from late 2025 regarding expert testimony indicate that the parties are preparing for trial, with issues such as damages and ongoing indirect infringement still to be resolved.Barco, Inc. v. Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd., Case No. 2:23-cv-00521, is an ongoing patent infringement lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas. Barco, Inc. and Barco NV (collectively, "Barco") accuse Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. (collectively, "Yealink") of infringing multiple patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,258,676.

Here are the key legal developments in chronological order:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2023-11-14: Barco, Inc. and Barco NV filed the patent infringement complaint against Yealink.
• Yealink initially filed a Second Amended Answer, admitting infringement of a single claim for each asserted patent.
• To bypass technical discovery, Yealink later sought and was granted leave to file a Third Amended Answer, in which it admitted to infringing all asserted claims. This admission, however, led to a dispute concerning the scope of admitted infringement, particularly regarding ongoing indirect infringement.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance & Discovery Milestones:

• 2024-12-17: The parties submitted their P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction Statement. Barco contended that no claim construction was necessary given Yealink's infringement admissions. Conversely, Yealink sought construction for certain terms, arguing that its admissions did not preclude invalidity defenses and that the terms were also relevant to dependent claims still in contention.
• 2025-08-05: During a Pretrial Conference, the parties disputed whether Yealink's admissions encompassed ongoing indirect infringement.
• 2025-08-22: Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne issued a Memorandum Order, ruling that the issue of ongoing indirect infringement by Yealink remained a live issue for trial. The order noted that Yealink's earlier broad admissions were made in an effort to avoid technical discovery.
• 2025-10-13: Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne issued multiple orders related to expert testimony:
  • An order partially granting and partially denying Yealink's Daubert motion and motion to strike the expert opinion of Michael C. Brogioli.
  • A Memorandum Order denying Yealink's Daubert motion and motion to exclude the expert opinion of William B. Scally.
  • A Memorandum Order partially granting Plaintiff's motion to strike Dr. Almeroth's opinions, specifically paragraphs 114 to 137, but otherwise denying the motion. The court observed that Yealink had indicated it would not pursue invalidity arguments, and Dr. Almeroth's opinions on the state of the art were deemed permissible for the purpose of damages apportionment.
• 2025-11-10: Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne issued a Memorandum Order amending a prior order regarding William B. Scally's expert opinion. This amendment prohibited Mr. Scally, Barco's counsel, and other witnesses from referencing a pre-suit Global License Offer to the jury, citing Federal Rule of Evidence 408 on settlement negotiations. However, the portions of Mr. Scally's report relying on this information did not need to be stricken.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• A claim construction hearing was scheduled for 2025-03-11. While the hearing was to address proposed constructions for the asserted patents, specific details or a formal Markman order resulting from this hearing are not available in the provided information. Barco's stance was that claim construction was unnecessary due to Yealink's admissions of infringement.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

• Yealink has initiated inter partes review (IPR) proceedings against several of the patents asserted by Barco. This includes IPR2024-01438 challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,258,676. Other IPRs were also filed against U.S. Patent Nos. 10,762,002 (IPR2024-01436), 11,403,237 (IPR2024-01437), and 11,422,951 (IPR2024-01439). The existence of these IPRs was acknowledged in the district court proceedings, particularly in discussions surrounding Yealink's infringement admissions. The ultimate outcomes or current statuses of these specific IPR proceedings are not detailed in the available search results.

Final Disposition or Present Posture:

• As of 2026-06-17, the case is ongoing in the Eastern District of Texas. The recent court orders concerning expert testimony suggest that the parties are engaged in pre-trial preparations, with issues such as damages and ongoing indirect infringement still pending resolution.

The plaintiff, Barco, Inc., is represented by the following counsel from K&L Gates LLP:

• Christopher Centurelli

  • Role: Lead Counsel (appearing pro hac vice)
  • Firm: K&L Gates LLP, Boston, MA.
  • Note: He is a partner specializing in complex patent, trade secret, and commercial disputes, with experience in jury trials, claim construction, summary judgment, preliminary injunction, and IPR hearings. He is recognized by The Legal 500 for his work in patent litigation.

• Anna E. L'Hommedieu

  • Role: Of Counsel (appearing pro hac vice)
  • Firm: K&L Gates LLP, Boston, MA.
  • Note: An associate in complex civil litigation, including intellectual property cases in state and federal courts. Her experience includes various phases of commercial litigation such as drafting pleadings, discovery, and motion practice.

• Joshua N. Andrews

  • Role: Lead Counsel (appearing pro hac vice)
  • Firm: K&L Gates LLP, Boston, MA.
  • Note: A USPTO-registered patent lawyer and partner focusing on patent litigation and IP procurement, with experience in all stages of patent litigation, Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs), and appeals to the Federal Circuit. He has advised clients in various technical fields, including telecommunication systems and wireless meeting room systems.

• Erik J. Halverson

  • Role: Local Counsel / Lead Counsel
  • Firm: K&L Gates LLP, San Francisco, CA.
  • Note: He is a first-chair, PTO-registered patent litigator experienced in patent litigation and post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), having served as primary counsel in over 100 IPR and PGR matters. He is admitted to practice before the Eastern District of Texas and has extensive experience in both the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas.

The defendant, Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd., was represented by attorneys from Dentons US LLP, who notably secured a favorable jury verdict in the Eastern District of Texas. Earlier in the case, Elizabeth Mooar Chiaviello of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP had appeared for Yealink. However, Ms. Chiaviello later joined Nixon Peabody LLP in July 2024, and the Dentons team led the jury trial that concluded in November 2025 and continued to represent Yealink in post-trial and Patent Office proceedings in April 2026.

The counsel of record representing Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. for the significant trial and post-trial phases includes:

• Stephen Yang

  • Role: Lead Counsel, Partner
  • Firm: Dentons US LLP, New York, NY
  • Experience: Yang is a seasoned trial lawyer focused on patent and intellectual property litigation, having served as lead counsel in over 70 cases before U.S. District Courts, the ITC, and the PTAB. He is recognized for crafting strategic and often unconventional litigation strategies for global clients, particularly those from Asia and Europe.

• Victor C. Johnson

  • Role: Lead Partner, Trial Counsel
  • Firm: Dentons US LLP, Dallas, TX
  • Experience: Johnson is a seasoned trial lawyer and partner in Dentons' Intellectual Property and Technology practice with over 25 years of experience in high-stakes patent, trademark, trade secret, and copyright litigation. He has extensive experience in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas.

• Forrest D. Gothia

  • Role: Managing Associate, Trial Team, Patent Office Proceedings
  • Firm: Dentons US LLP, Dallas, TX
  • Experience: Gothia is an experienced trial lawyer litigating patent cases in various Federal District Courts and at the ITC. He is also a registered patent attorney with the USPTO and has experience in patent prosecution.

• Haley S. Eastham

  • Role: Senior Managing Associate, Litigation, Trial Support
  • Firm: Dentons US LLP, Dallas, TX
  • Experience: Eastham's practice focuses on complex commercial litigation and she has served on several trial teams.

• Kevin R. Greenleaf

  • Role: Counsel, Lead of Patent Office Proceedings
  • Firm: Dentons US LLP, Chicago, IL (though also associated with Silicon Valley office)
  • Experience: Greenleaf is a computer engineer and leads Dentons' Post-Grant team, having handled hundreds of post-grant proceedings at the USPTO, including IPRs.

• Timothy C. Bickham

  • Role: Partner, Additional Support (listed as retired partner by current firm profile)
  • Firm: Dentons US LLP, Washington, DC
  • Experience: Bickham has extensive experience in patent law and complex litigation, representing international entities in US district courts and the ITC, and served as head of Dentons' China IP Litigation team.

• Reid L. Ashinoff

  • Role: Litigation Partner, Pivotal Trial Support
  • Firm: Dentons US LLP, New York, NY
  • Experience: Ashinoff serves as one of the Chairs of the firm's Class Action/Major Financial Litigation practice and is recognized as a leading trial lawyer nationally, with significant experience in complex commercial litigation and jury trials.

Former Counsel:

• Elizabeth Mooar Chiaviello
  • Role: Counsel (initially)
  • Firm: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (at the time of initial appearance); subsequently Nixon Peabody LLP, Washington, DC
  • Experience: Chiaviello focuses on complex intellectual property and litigation matters, particularly patent, trademark, and trade secret disputes, with significant experience litigating in Texas federal courts. Her representation in this case appears to have been superseded by Dentons.