IP Law Daily, PATENT—E.D. Tex.: Permanent injunction granted in dispute related to wireless presentation patents, (Sep 1, 2026)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

The district court found that all the four factors weighed in favor of granting a permanent injunction.

The federal district court in Texas, granted a request for a permanent injunction enjoining Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. from making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing its WPP20 or WPP30 wireless presentation dongles into the United States. The district court held that Barco Inc. and Barco NV were entitled to permanent injunction because they satisfied the four-factor test for permanent injunctive relief (Barco, Inc. v. Yealink (Usa) Network Technology Co., Ltd., No. 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. Aug. 27, 2026)).

Barco Inc. and Barco NV (Barco), is a global technology company leading in visualization, networking, and collaboration solutions. Barco had filed a case against Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. (Yealink) alleging infringement of six patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 10,762,002 (the ’002 Patent); 10,795,832 (the ’832 Patent); 10,904,103 (the ’103 Patent); 11,258,676 (the ’676 Patent); 11,403,237 (the ’237 Patent); and 11,422,951 (the ’951 Patent) (together, the asserted patents). The jury held that Yealink did not induce its customers to infringe any of the asserted patents after April 25, 2024, and that Yealink did not willfully infringe any of the asserted patents. The jury awarded Barco a lump sum royalty of $907,360.00 to compensate Barco for Yealink’s admitted infringement of the asserted patents from May 17, 2023, to April 25, 2024. Barco then filed a motion for a permanent injunction. Barco sought an injunction barring Yealink and any other persons who are in active concert with Yealink or participate with Yealink from infringing the asserted patents, including by making, using, offering for sale, or selling the WPP20 or WPP30 dongle (WPP) products, or any colorable imitations thereof, in the United States, or importing such products into the United States.

Permanent injunction. The district court conducted its analysis according to the four-factor test for permanent injunctive relief in eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006), in which a party seeking a permanent injunction must demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the [parties], a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.

Irreparable harm. The district court noted that Barco’s rights to select who will practice its patents, and to exclude competitors from using its technology were violated by Yealink’s past and renewed infringement. In addition, the district court found that Barco’s previous licensing offer to Yealink did not counsel against a finding of irreparable harm, because Barco offered a license to Yealink in June 2023—prior to the filing of this action. Circumstances have materially changed since June 2023. Yealink stated it would stop producing the accused products prior to trial, but has since reneged on this statement and publicly confirmed it will resume production and sale of these products in the marketplace. Therefore, Yealink’s post-trial decision to resume its infringement, as well as Barco and Yealink’s status as competitors strongly counseled in favor of a finding of irreparable harm. Thus, Barco made a sufficient showing of irreparable harm to warrant injunctive relief.

Adequacy of monetary damages. The district court noted that the jury’s award addresses only past infringement where the jury was presented with evidence that Yealink had ceased selling the accused products. The jury did not have any opportunity to consider ongoing infringement, and such harm is always speculative by nature and consequently is difficult to value. Further, the district court did not find that Barco’s licensing negotiations undermine Barco’s arguments regarding the inadequacy of monetary damages in this case because the negotiations did not result in licenses. Therefore, the district court concluded that Barco sufficiently established that monetary damages are inadequate to remedy the harm it has and will suffer.

Balance of hardships. Barco argued that the balance of hardships favors the granting an injunction based upon Yealink’s conduct related to the accused products, both before and after trial. Barco contended that Yealink purposefully withdrew the accused products from the market ahead of trial and suggested it would not reenter the market after trial. In so doing, Yealink was able to neutralize Barco’s claims of willful infringement and higher damages. Barco asserted that Yealink should not be rewarded as it “misled” the jury, and should instead be held to the behavior it held out for itself—not reentering the market.

The district court found that the balance of hardships between Barco and Yealink favors granting an injunction because the manner in which Yealink positioned itself at trial as having withdrawn from the market seems likely to have impacted the jury’s finding of Yealink’s liability and damages. The jury heard Yealink’s evidence that it both withdrew from the market and did not consider the accused products important to its business model. Yealink’s newly expressed intention to continue selling the accused products despite the jury’s finding confirms Barco’s prejudice. To deny Barco’s requested injunction would indirectly reward Yealink’s bait-and-switch tactic, and would cause material hardship for Barco. The district court also found that Yealink would not face an undue hardship stemming from an injunction covering products it represented at trial were a “small” part of its business model. Additionally, an injunction would still be proper even if Yealink had done what it told the jury it would do.

Public interest. The district court found that the public interest would not be disserved by granting an injunction in this case, for the same reasons as discussed on the balance of hardships factor. The district court noted that permitting Yealink to resume selling the accused products after it touted its withdrawal from the market and told the jury at trial that the accused products were not important to its business model would disserve the public interest. While Yealink did not advance the position at trial that it would never resume selling the accused products, Yealink’s behavior in this case could well encourage other litigants to pursue a similar bait and switch approach in the future. Thus, denying this injunction could be viewed as sanctioning Yealink’s gamesmanship, which would undermine the public’s interest in enforcing patent rights.

Accordingly, the district court granted Barco’s motion for permanent injunction and permanently enjoined Yealink from infringing the asserted patents, including by making, using, offering for sale, or selling the WPP products, or any colorable imitations thereof, in the United States, or importing such products into the United States. The district court also ordered Barco to post a bond in the amount of $907,360.00.

The Case is No. 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP.

Judge: Gilstrap, R.

Attorneys: Christopher Centurelli (K&L Gates LLP) for Barco, Inc. Victor Calvin Johnson (Dentons US LLP) for Yealink [USA] Network Technology Co., Ltd.

Companies: Barco, Inc.; Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd.

Cases: Patent TechnologyInternet TexasNews