Barco Wins a Permanent Injunction Against Yealink's Wireless Presentation Dongles, and a Federal Circuit Appeal Is Noticed.

The appeal notice

A notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit was filed on October 23, 2026, as Dkt. No. 286 in Barco, Inc. v. Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd., No. 2:23-cv-00521 (E.D. Tex.), a Marshall Division case assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne handling referred matters. The docket shows that the notice, the order and the docket sheet were transmitted to the Federal Circuit on October 26, 2026. The notice came four weeks after Judge Gilstrap entered final judgment on September 25, 2026.

The parties and the patents

Barco, Inc. and Barco NV filed the complaint on November 14, 2023, against Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. (together, Yealink). The complaint says Barco, Inc. is a Delaware company based in Duluth, Georgia, and Barco NV is a Belgian company based in Kortrijk, Belgium. It says Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. is a Georgia company based in Atlanta and a U.S. affiliate of Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd., which is based in Xiamen, China. The complaint describes Barco's ClickShare products as wireless presentation and conferencing tools that let meeting participants share a laptop screen on a meeting room display without cables. It alleges, on information and belief, that Yealink infringes by making, using, offering for sale, selling and importing the A20-020-TEAMS Video Bar and the WPP30 Presentation Pod, and other similarly operating products.

The complaint asserts six patents: U.S. Patent 10,762,002, Electronic Tool and Methods With Audio For Meetings, issued September 1, 2020 (at least claim 11); U.S. Patent 10,795,832, Electronic Tool For Communicating Over A Communication Network, issued October 6, 2020; U.S. Patent 10,904,103, Electronic Tool and Methods for Meetings, issued January 26, 2021; U.S. Patent 11,258,676, Electronic Tool and Methods for Meetings, issued February 22, 2022; U.S. Patent 11,403,237, Electronic Tool and Methods With Audio For Meetings, issued August 2, 2022; and U.S. Patent 11,422,951, Electronic Tool and Methods For Meetings Between Two Users, issued August 23, 2022 (at least claim 1 of each of the last five). It alleges that Barco contacted Yealink in May 2023 identifying the '002, '832 and '951 patents, and again on August 24, 2023, adding the '103 and '237 patents. The complaint pleads willful infringement and asks for damages, enhanced damages, attorney fees, and preliminary and permanent injunctions.

Admissions before trial

In an August 22, 2025 order (Dkt. No. 178), Magistrate Judge Payne described how Yealink, "in order to avoid technical discovery," made admissions of infringement as the case went on. Its second amended answer admitted infringement of a single claim of each asserted patent, which the court found did not remove the need for technical discovery, particularly because all the admitted claims were subject to IPR proceedings. Yealink then received leave to file a third amended answer admitting infringement of all asserted claims. The court held that Yealink had admitted all technical aspects of infringement but not that it continued to induce infringement after the date it says it withdrew the accused products from the U.S. market, and left that question for the jury.

In orders signed November 6, 2025, Judge Gilstrap granted, as unopposed, Yealink's motion for partial summary judgment concerning marking (Dkt. No. 227) and denied as moot Barco's motion for summary judgment of no invalidity (Dkt. No. 226), both on Magistrate Judge Payne's recommendations.

The verdict and the judgment

Trial began November 17, 2025. On November 19, 2025, the jury found that Yealink did not induce its customers to infringe any of the asserted patents after April 25, 2024, and did not willfully infringe, and it awarded Barco a lump-sum royalty of $907,360 for Yealink's admitted infringement from May 17, 2023, to April 25, 2024. The court later wrote that the verdict form, which asked the jury to award damages solely for that period, reflected Yealink's representation before trial, also stated in a joint trial exhibit, that it planned to "no longer sell WPP20/WPP30 products as standalone devices or in combination with corresponding video conferencing systems in the United States market."

The September 25, 2026 final judgment (Dkt. No. 282) states that Yealink directly and indirectly infringed the '002, '237, '676 and '951 patents from May 2023 to April 25, 2024, when its WPP20 and WPP30 presentation pods are used with a connected device, and that the WPP20 and WPP30 presentation pods directly and indirectly infringed the '832 and '103 patents during the same period. It awards the $907,360 royalty, prejudgment interest at the five-year U.S. Treasury Bill rate compounded monthly, post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. 1961, and costs, and it names Barco the prevailing party over Yealink's objection. It denied as moot Yealink's motion for an ongoing royalty and its motion to stay, finding the relief they sought fully addressed by the injunction order.

The injunction

Judge Gilstrap granted Barco's motion for a permanent injunction on August 27, 2026 (Dkt. No. 278), after a July 23, 2026 hearing, applying the four-factor test of eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. On irreparable harm, the court pointed to a post-trial declaration in which Yealink stated that "now that the trial has concluded and the jury has decided that Yealink should pay Barco $907,360 for its past infringement, Yealink has decided to reintroduce its WPP30 in the United States, and will resume selling its WPP30 dongle in 2026." The court found that this post-trial conduct, together with the parties' status as competitors who both practice the patented technology, showed irreparable harm. It rejected Yealink's arguments that the parties' dongles are not interchangeable and that Barco's license to a third-party company, its sole licensee for this technology, and its June 2023 license offer to Yealink undercut the claim of harm.

The court found money damages inadequate because the jury's award covered only past infringement and the jury had no opportunity to consider ongoing infringement. It found that the balance of hardships weighed toward an injunction because Yealink had positioned itself at trial as having withdrawn from the market, and said that denying the injunction "would indirectly reward Yealink's bait-and-switch" tactic. On the public interest, the court rejected Yealink's argument that pending post-grant review of the patents at the USPTO weighed against an injunction, noting that Yealink did not contest infringement of the 75 patent claims asserted at trial.

The order permanently enjoins Yealink from infringing the asserted patents, including by making, using, offering for sale, or selling the WPP20 or WPP30 dongle products, or any colorable imitations, in the United States, or importing them into the United States, effective immediately. The court also ordered Barco to post a $907,360 bond, the same amount as the jury award, to cover Yealink's costs and damages if it is later found to have been wrongfully enjoined, including if the asserted claims are found unenforceable in final, non-appealable post-grant proceedings before the USPTO. The court noted that Rule 65(c) requires security for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions but is silent on permanent injunctions, and found a bond proper here. Although the parties briefed the motion under seal, the court declined to seal the injunction.

Other filings on the docket

The docket shows that Yealink filed a notice of PTAB final written decisions on April 8, 2026 (Dkt. No. 263) and a motion to stay on April 22, 2026 (Dkt. No. 266), and filed a notice withdrawing its ongoing-royalty motion on June 19, 2026 (Dkt. No. 271). After the final judgment, the docket shows a bond and a proposed bill of costs, both filed October 9, 2026 (Dkt. Nos. 284 and 285).

What to watch next

Watch for the Federal Circuit to docket the appeal, which will show the appeal number, the appellant, and the order under review, and for any motion to stay the injunction pending appeal and the taxation of costs. The case can end at any time, including by settlement or voluntary dismissal.