Yealink USA Network Technology Co Ltd et al. v. Barco NV

This Inter Partes Review (IPR) case, IPR2025-00491, involves Yealink USA Network Technology Co Ltd and Yealink Network Technology Co Ltd as Petitioners, challenging a patent owned by Barco NV. Yealink Network Technology Co Ltd is a Chinese telecommunications company and a global leader in unified communication and collaboration solutions, providing products such as desk phones, video conferencing systems, and headsets. Barco NV, a Belgian-headquartered global technology company, specializes in visualization, collaboration, and networking technology, with its ClickShare wireless presentation and conferencing solutions being a key offering. The IPR targets US Patent 10,684,972, titled "Method and System for Making Functional Devices Available to Participants of Meetings." This patent generally describes a system for video conferencing where a user's device, like a laptop, connects to a base unit via a peripheral device (e.g., a USB dongle), enabling access to shared functional devices such as cameras and microphones for unified communication applications like Skype.

This IPR is directly linked to an underlying patent infringement lawsuit filed by Barco against Yealink in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. In that district court litigation, Yealink admitted to infringing six of Barco's ClickShare patents related to wireless presentation, specifically concerning Yealink's WPP20 and WPP30 wireless presentation devices. A jury in the Texas case awarded Barco over $900,000 in damages for infringing sales over one year and ordered the continued removal of Yealink's infringing products from the US market. However, Yealink contended that the jury found no ongoing infringement, no willful infringement, and awarded only "minimal damages," a fraction of what Barco had sought.

The procedural posture highlights the strategic importance of the PTAB. Yealink filed this IPR, and it was instituted on July 29, 2025. The case is notable as it represents a coordinated litigation strategy by Yealink. Following the district court verdict, Yealink successfully challenged four of the six asserted Barco patents through IPR proceedings, leading to their invalidation by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on grounds of obviousness. The remaining two asserted patents were also forced into reexamination proceedings. This demonstrates the significant impact the PTAB can have on patent litigation outcomes, allowing an accused infringer to undermine the validity of patents even after an initial finding of infringement in district court. Parallel litigation is also occurring in Europe before the Unified Patent Court (UPC) involving related Barco patents against Yealink.

The provided case, IPR2025-00491, is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), not a district court patent infringement litigation. Therefore, many of the requested events such as the filing of a complaint, answer, counterclaims, motions to dismiss or transfer, Markman outcomes, discovery milestones, trial events, verdict, and post-trial motions do not directly apply to this PTAB proceeding.

Instead, the key legal developments for this IPR are as follows:

• IPR Filing (2025-01-17): Yealink USA Network Technology Co Ltd and Yealink Network Technology Co Ltd filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 10,684,972 owned by Barco NV.
• Institution Decision (2025-07-29): The PTAB instituted the IPR, meaning it found a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim of U.S. Patent 10,684,972 is unpatentable.

As of the current date (2026-07-29), the IPR has been instituted. A Final Written Decision in an IPR is typically due within 12 months of institution, extendable by up to 6 months for good cause. Given the institution date of July 29, 2025, a Final Written Decision would have been expected around July 29, 2026.

While IPR2025-00491 is currently listed as "Pending - Instituted", information from external sources indicates that Barco NV and Yealink Network Technology Co. have been involved in related patent disputes.

Here's a summary of the broader legal landscape involving Barco and Yealink, and how the PTAB proceedings fit in:

• District Court Litigation - Eastern District of Texas (Filed November 2023): Barco filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Yealink in the U.S. District Court in Marshall, Texas, alleging infringement of six ClickShare patents related to wireless presentation. Yealink admitted to infringing these patents prior to a jury trial.
  • Verdict (December 2025): A jury awarded Barco over $900,000 in damages for one year of infringing sales. The verdict aimed to ensure the continued removal of Yealink's WPP20 and WPP30 devices from the U.S. market. The jury found no ongoing infringement and no willful infringement, awarding what Yealink considered "minimal damages" compared to what Barco sought.
• Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings: In conjunction with the district court litigation, Yealink pursued IPRs against Barco's asserted patents.
  • Invalidation of Four Patents (April 2026): The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued final written decisions, declaring claims of four out of the six wireless meeting-room patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 10,762,002, 11,403,237, 11,258,676, and 11,422,951) as unpatentable due to obviousness. This development occurred after the jury trial where Yealink had already admitted infringement.
  • Reexamination Proceedings: The remaining two patents asserted against Yealink were forced into formal reexamination proceedings, placing the validity of all asserted patents under active review.
  • Status of IPR2025-00491 (U.S. Patent 10,684,972): This specific IPR is listed as "Pending - Instituted" as of the latest PTAB records available. Given the context of other IPRs being decided around April 2026, it is highly likely that a Final Written Decision for IPR2025-00491 would have been issued or is imminent. However, without a definitive update, its status remains as "Pending - Instituted."
• Unified Patent Court (UPC) Proceedings (October 2024): Barco also initiated legal proceedings before the European Unified Patent Court (UPC) seeking to prohibit Yealink from making, selling, and distributing its wireless conferencing solutions in Europe. This action complemented the U.S. patent infringement lawsuit.
  • Preliminary Injunction Refused (April 2025): The UPC refused Barco's application for a preliminary injunction.

Overall Outcome/Posture:
Yealink's coordinated litigation strategy, combining a defense in district court with challenges at the PTAB, has resulted in a complex outcome. While a jury awarded Barco damages for past infringement, Yealink subsequently achieved significant victories at the PTAB by invalidating four of the six asserted patents. The validity of the remaining patents is also under review. These PTAB decisions significantly narrow the scope of the patent dispute and potentially limit Barco's ability to enforce the invalidated patents.

The plaintiff(s), Yealink USA Network Technology Co Ltd and Yealink Network Technology Co Ltd, are represented by counsel from Dentons in this Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-00491. The team involved in the Patent Office proceedings includes:

• Stephen Yang

  • Role: Lead Counsel, Partner
  • Firm: Dentons
  • Office Location: Stephen Yang is a partner in Dentons' Intellectual Property and Technology team. His practice focuses on patent and intellectual property litigation, including cases before U.S. District Courts, the International Trade Commission (ITC), and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. He served as lead counsel for Yealink in a significant patent infringement lawsuit against Barco in the Eastern District of Texas, where the jury returned a favorable verdict for Yealink.

• Kevin Greenleaf

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Dentons
  • Office Location: Kevin Greenleaf is counsel on Dentons' Intellectual Property and Technology team. He was involved in the Patent Office proceedings for Yealink against Barco.

• Forrest Gothia

  • Role: Managing Associate
  • Firm: Dentons
  • Office Location: Forrest Gothia is a managing associate with Dentons' Intellectual Property and Technology team. He contributed to both the Patent Office proceedings and the jury trial for Yealink against Barco.

Based on available public web search results, the specific counsel of record representing Barco NV in IPR2025-00491 has not been directly identified. While information regarding Barco NV's general patent enforcement activities and its in-house legal team is available, the external law firm and specific attorneys handling this particular Inter Partes Review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board are not explicitly listed in the search results.

In-house Counsel:

• Kurt Verheggen
  • Role: General Counsel
  • Firm: Barco NV (in-house)
  • Office Location: Kortrijk, Belgium (Barco's headquarters)
  • Note: Mr. Verheggen oversees Barco's legal, audit, risk, and compliance matters. He has publicly commented on Barco's vigorous defense of its intellectual property, including successful patent enforcement actions against infringers of its ClickShare technology in the US and Europe.

While Barco NV has been involved in other patent litigation, such as the district court case Dolby Laboratories, Inc. et al v. Barco NV (2:26-cv-00291) in the Eastern District of Texas, where attorneys from White & Case LLP (Yar R. Chaikovsky and David T. Okano) and Melissa Richards Smith appeared, these appearances are specific to that district court action and cannot be definitively attributed to the IPR2025-00491 proceeding.

Publicly accessible detailed dockets for PTAB cases that explicitly list counsel of record for the patent owner in IPR2025-00491 were not available through the conducted web searches. Therefore, the external counsel of record for Barco NV in this specific PTAB case remains unidentified through these search means.