DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIMS 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

BARCO, INC. and BARCO NV, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

YEALINK (USA) NETWORK 

TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., and 

YEALINK NETWORK 

TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., 

Defendants. 

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

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

DEFENDANTS YEALINK (USA) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. AND 

YEALINK NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE 

DEFENSES, AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR PATENT 

INFRINGEMENT 

Defendants Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. (“Yealink USA”) and Yealink 

Network Technology Co., Ltd. (“Yealink China”) (collectively “Defendants” or “Yealink”) hereby 

answer Barco, Inc. and Barco NV’s (collectively “Plaintiffs” or “Barco”) Complaint for Patent 

Infringement (“Complaint”) as follows. Yealink denies the allegations and characterizations in 

the Complaint unless expressly admitted in the following paragraphs. Furthermore, the section 

headings included herein are included only for purposes of clarity and organization. Yealink 

denies any allegations that may be implied by or inferred from the headings contained in the 

Complaint. 

Case 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP Document 19 Filed 03/18/24 Page 1 of 25 PageID #: 225
2 

I. ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

NATURE OF THE ACTION 

1. Yealink is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each and every 

allegation therein. 

2. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint. 

3. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint. 

PARTIES 

4. Yealink is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each and every 

allegation therein. 

5. Yealink is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each and every 

allegation therein. 

6. Yealink admits that Yealink USA is a company organized under the laws of the 

state of Georgia in 2014, with a principal place of business at 999 Peachtree Street Ste. 2300, 

Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Yealink further admits that Yealink USA is a wholly-owned subsidiary 

of Yealink China. Yealink denies all other allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint. 

7. Yealink admits that Yealink China is a company organized under the laws of China 

and headquartered at 666 Hu’an Road, Huli District, Xiamen, Fujian Province, 361006, China. 

Yealink denies all other allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint. 

8. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint. 

Case 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP Document 19 Filed 03/18/24 Page 2 of 25 PageID #: 226
3 

9. Yealink admits that Yealink China manufactures, sells, and imports certain wireless 

presentation tools to resellers, distributors, and consumers in the United States, including in Texas. 

Yealink all other allegations in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

10. Yealink admits that this action purports to be brought under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 et 

seq. 

11. Yealink admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1331 and 1338(a). 

12. Yealink admits that Yealink China has a Customer Experience Center located at 

Suite 160, 5445 Legacy Drive, Plano, TX 75024. Yealink specifically denies that this Court has 

personal jurisdiction over Yealink USA. Yealink further denies that Yealink USA has conducted 

infringing activities in this District or elsewhere and denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 

12 of the Complaint. 

13. Yealink denies that Yealink USA is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District. 

Yealink further denies that Yealink USA has its principal place of business in this District. Yealink 

denies that venue in this District is proper as to Yealink USA. Yealink specifically denies that 

Yealink USA has conducted acts of infringement in the District or elsewhere and denies any 

remaining allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint. 

14. Yealink does not dispute—for purposes of this action only—that Yealink China is 

subject to this Court’s personal jurisdiction. Yealink admits that Yealink China sells and imports 

certain wireless presentation tools to resellers, distributors, and consumers in the United States, 

including in Texas. Yealink denies all other allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint. 

15. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint. 

16. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint. 

Case 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP Document 19 Filed 03/18/24 Page 3 of 25 PageID #: 227
4 

17. Yealink does not dispute—at this time and for purposes of this action only—that 

venue as to Yealink China is proper in this District, but does not waive the right to contest the 

propriety of venue in another action or to seek transfer to a more convenient forum later in this or 

another action. Yealink specifically denies that it has committed acts of infringement in this 

District or elsewhere and denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint. 

18. Yealink does not dispute this Court’s personal jurisdiction over Yealink China for 

purposes of this action only. Yealink denies all other allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint. 

PATENTS-IN-SUIT 

A. The Asserted Patents 

19. Yealink is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each and every 

allegation therein. 

20. Yealink is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each and every 

allegation therein. 

21. Yealink is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each and every 

allegation therein. 

22. Yealink is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each and every 

allegation therein. 

23. Yealink admits that the ’002 Patent is titled “Electronic Tool and Methods With 

Audio For Meetings” and is issued on September 1, 2020. Yealink further admits that the ’237 

Case 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP Document 19 Filed 03/18/24 Page 4 of 25 PageID #: 228
5 

Patent is titled “Electronic Tool and Methods With Audio For Meetings” and is issued on August 

2, 2022. 

24. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint. 

25. Yealink admits that Paragraph 25 of the Complaint purports to show a side-by-side 

comparison of Yealink’s product and Barco’s device. Yealink specifically denies that Paragraph 

25 accurately describes Yealink’s product and denies all other allegations in Paragraph 25 of the 

Complaint. 

26. Yealink admits that the ’832 Patent is titled “Electronic Tool For Communicating 

Over A Communication Network” and is issued on October 6, 2020. Yealink further admits that 

the ’103 Patent is titled “Electronic Tool and Methods for Meetings” and is issued on January 26, 

2021. 

27. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint. 

28. Yealink admits that Paragraph 28 of the Complaint purports to show a side-by-side 

comparison of Yealink’s product and Barco’s device. Yealink specifically denies that Paragraph 

28 accurately describes Yealink’s product and denies all other allegations in Paragraph 28 of the 

Complaint. 

29. Yealink admits that the ’676 Patent is titled “Electronic Tool and Methods for 

Meetings” and is issued on February 22, 2022. Yealink further admits that the ’951 Patent is titled 

“Electronic Tool and Methods For Meetings Between Two Users” and is issued on August 23, 

2022. 

30. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint. 

31. Yealink admits that Paragraph 31 of the Complaint purports to show a side-by-side 

comparison of Yealink’s product and Barco’s device. Yealink specifically denies that Paragraph 

Case 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP Document 19 Filed 03/18/24 Page 5 of 25 PageID #: 229
6 

31 accurately describes Yealink’s product and denies all other allegations in Paragraph 31 of the 

Complaint. 

32. Yealink is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each and every 

allegation therein. 

B. Yealink’s Purported Infringing Products 

33. Yealink admits that it sells and imports certain wireless presentation tools to 

resellers, distributors, and consumers in the United States, including in Texas. Yealink denies all 

other allegations in Paragraph 33 of the Complaint. 

34. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint. 

35. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint 

B. Yealink’s Purported Refusal to Cease Infringement of Barco’s Patents 

36. Yealink admits that it received a letter from Barco in May 2023 regarding alleged 

infringement of certain patents. Yealink specifically denies that it has committed unlawful patent 

infringement and denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 36 of the Complaint. 

37. Yealink admits that in Barco’s May 2023 letter to Yealink, Barco identified 

Yealink’s A20-020-TEAMS Video Bar and WPP30 Presentation Pod as allegedly infringing the 

’002, ’832, and ’951 Patents. Yealink denies that A20-020-TEAMS Video Bar and WPP30 

Presentation Pod infringe the ’002, ’832, and ’951 Patents and denies any remaining allegations in 

Paragraph 37 of the Complaint. 

38. Yealink admits that on August 24, 2023, it received a letter from Barco, which 

identified Yealink’s A20-020-TEAMS Video Bar and WPP30 Presentation Pod as allegedly 

infringing the ’002, ’832, ’951, ’103, ’237 Patents. Yealink denies that A20-020-TEAMS Video 

Case 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP Document 19 Filed 03/18/24 Page 6 of 25 PageID #: 230
7 

Bar and WPP30 Presentation Pod infringe the ’002, ’832, ’951, ’103, ’237 Patents and denies any 

remaining allegations in Paragraph 38 of the Complaint. 

39. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint. 

COUNT I—ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’002 PATENT 

40. Paragraph 40 does not contain any allegations of facts, and, therefore, no answer is 

required. Yealink incorporates by reference its responses in Paragraphs 1 through 39 as though 

fully set forth herein. Otherwise, denied. 

41. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint. 

42. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 42 of the Complaint. 

43. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 43 of the Complaint. 

44. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 44 of the Complaint. 

45. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 45 of the Complaint. 

46. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 46 of the Complaint. 

47. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 47 of the Complaint. 

48. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 48 of the Complaint. 

49. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 49 of the Complaint. 

COUNT II—ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’832 PATENT 

50. Paragraph 50 does not contain any allegations of facts, and, therefore, no answer is 

required. Yealink incorporates by reference its responses in Paragraphs 1 through 49 as though 

fully set forth herein. Otherwise, denied. 

51. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 51 of the Complaint. 

52. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 52 of the Complaint. 

53. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 53 of the Complaint. 

54. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 54 of the Complaint. 

Case 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP Document 19 Filed 03/18/24 Page 7 of 25 PageID #: 231
8 

55. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 55 of the Complaint. 

56. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 56 of the Complaint. 

57. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 57 of the Complaint. 

58. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 58 of the Complaint. 

59. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 59 of the Complaint. 

COUNT III—ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’103 PATENT 

60. Paragraph 60 does not contain any allegations of facts, and, therefore, no answer is 

required. Yealink incorporates by reference its responses in Paragraphs 1 through 59 as though 

fully set forth herein. Otherwise, denied. 

61. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 61 of the Complaint. 

62. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 62 of the Complaint. 

63. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 63 of the Complaint. 

64. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 64 of the Complaint. 

65. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 65 of the Complaint. 

66. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 66 of the Complaint. 

67. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 67 of the Complaint. 

68. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 68 of the Complaint. 

69. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 69 of the Complaint. 

COUNT IV—ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’676 PATENT 

70. Paragraph 70 does not contain any allegations of facts, and, therefore, no answer is 

required. Yealink incorporates by reference its responses in Paragraphs 1 through 69 as though 

fully set forth herein. Otherwise, denied. 

71. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 71 of the Complaint. 

72. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 72 of the Complaint. 

Case 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP Document 19 Filed 03/18/24 Page 8 of 25 PageID #: 232
9 

73. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 73 of the Complaint. 

74. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 74 of the Complaint. 

75. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 75 of the Complaint. 

76. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 76 of the Complaint. 

77. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 77 of the Complaint. 

78. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 78 of the Complaint. 

79. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 79 of the Complaint. 

COUNT V—ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’237 PATENT 

80. Paragraph 80 does not contain any allegations of facts, and, therefore, no answer is 

required. Yealink incorporates by reference its responses in Paragraphs 1 through 79 as though 

fully set forth herein. Otherwise, denied. 

81. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 81 of the Complaint. 

82. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 82 of the Complaint. 

83. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 83 of the Complaint. 

84. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 84 of the Complaint. 

85. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 85 of the Complaint. 

86. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 86 of the Complaint. 

87. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 87 of the Complaint. 

88. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 88 of the Complaint. 

89. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 89 of the Complaint. 

COUNT VI—ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’951 PATENT 

90. Paragraph 90 does not contain any allegations of facts, and, therefore, no answer is 

required. Yealink incorporates by reference its responses in Paragraphs 1 through 89 as though 

fully set forth herein. Otherwise, denied. 

Case 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP Document 19 Filed 03/18/24 Page 9 of 25 PageID #: 233
10 

91. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 91 of the Complaint. 

92. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 92 of the Complaint. 

93. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 93 of the Complaint. 

94. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 94 of the Complaint. 

95. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 95 of the Complaint. 

96. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 96 of the Complaint. 

97. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 97 of the Complaint. 

98. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 98 of the Complaint. 

99. Yealink denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 99 of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE TO PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

To the extent that the Prayer for Relief section of the Complaint is deemed to allege any 

facts or entitlements to the relief requested, Yealink denies each and every allegation. 

Specifically, Yealink denies that Barco has any valid claim and is entitled to any relief 

whatsoever. 

JURY DEMAND 

Yealink admits that Barco has demanded a trial by jury, and Yealink also demands a jury 

trial. 

II. ADDITIONAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Yealink asserts the following additional and affirmative defenses without assuming any 

burden of proof when such burden would otherwise be on Barco. Yealink repeats and 

incorporates by reference each of its answers in paragraphs 1 through 99 and the Response to 

Prayer for Relief as set forth above with each of the following defenses as if fully set forth 

Case 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP Document 19 Filed 03/18/24 Page 10 of 25 PageID #: 234
11 

herein. Further, Yealink specifically reserves all rights to assert additional defenses and 

affirmative defenses as additional information becomes available. 

FIRST DEFENSE

Barco has failed to plead its claims with sufficient specificity or factual support to place 

Yealink on notice of the claims Plaintiff is asserting against it, such that Plaintiff failed to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted. 

SECOND DEFENSE

Yealink has not infringed and does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the 

’002, ’832, ’103, ’676, ’237, ’951 Patents, either directly or indirectly, either literally or under 

the doctrine of equivalents, because the accused instrumentalities do not practice every claimed 

limitation of any claim of the ’002, ’832, ’103, ’676, ’237, ’951 Patents. 

THIRD DEFENSE

The claims of the ’002, ’832, ’103, ’676, ’237, ’951 Patents are invalid for failure to meet 

the requirements of one or more sections of Title 35, United States Code, and/or Title 37, Code 

of Federal Regulations, including but not limited to one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103 

and 112. 

FOURTH DEFENSE

Barco’s claims against Yealink are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of 

prosecution history estoppel and disclaimer, including based on the patent applicant’s statements, 

arguments, and acquiescence to the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”)’s examiner 

during the prosecution of U.S. Patent Application No. 14/344,836, which issued as the ’002 Patent, 

U.S. Patent Application No. 14/278,442, which issued as the ’832 Patent, U.S. Patent Application 

No. 14/725,401, which issued as the ’103 Patent, U.S. Patent Application No. 17/121,919, which 

Case 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP Document 19 Filed 03/18/24 Page 11 of 25 PageID #: 235
12 

issued as the ’676 Patent, U.S. Patent Application No. 16/852,790, which issued as the ’237 Patent, 

and U.S. Patent Application No. 16/990,215, which issued as the ’951 Patent. 

FIFTH DEFENSE 

Yealink has not committed any acts of infringement, willful or otherwise, in this District 

or elsewhere, and the ’002, ’832, ’103, ’676, ’237, ’951 Patents are invalid, and thus Barco 

cannot prove that it is entitled to enhanced damages or that this case is otherwise exceptional 

under 35 U.S.C. § 285. 

SIXTH DEFENSE 

Barco’s claims against Yealink for recovery are barred, in whole or in part, by 35 U.S.C. 

§ 286. For the purposes of this defense, the relevant calculation period for damages—as 

prescribed by statute—cannot be more than six years prior to the filing of the Original 

Complaint. 

SEVENTH DEFENSE 

Barco’s claims against Yealink for recovery are barred, in whole or in part, by 35 U.S.C. 

§ 287. 

EIGHTH DEFENSE 

Barco is precluded from recovering costs under 35 U.S.C. § 288. 

NINTH DEFENSE

Barco is not entitled to any injunctive relief because, among other reasons, any alleged 

injury is not immediate or irreparable, and Barco has an adequate remedy at law for any alleged 

injury. 

Case 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP Document 19 Filed 03/18/24 Page 12 of 25 PageID #: 236
13 

TENTH DEFENSE

Barco’s claims against Yealink are barred or limited by the doctrines of patent 

exhaustion, implied or express license, acquiescence, unclean hands, laches, estoppel, waiver, 

have-made rights, and/or other equitable doctrines. 

ELEVENTH DEFENSE

To the extent that Barco does not hold all substantial rights in any of the ’002, ’832, ’103, 

’676, ’237, ’951 Patents, Barco lacks standing to assert claims of alleged infringement of these 

patents. 

TWELFTH DEFENSE

To the extent that Barco claims infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents, Barco’s 

claims are barred under the Doctrine of Ensnarement, which prohibits Barco from asserting an 

infringement theory under Doctrine of Equivalents that encompasses, or “ensnares,” the prior art. 

COUNTERCLAIMS

Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. (“Yealink USA”) and Yealink Network 

Technology Co., Ltd. (“Yealink China”) (collectively “Counterclaimants” or “Yealink”) allege 

and assert the following counterclaims against Barco, Inc. and Barco NV’s (collectively 

“Counterclaim Defendants” or “Barco”). 

PARTIES

1. Counterclaimant Yealink USA was a Georgia corporation with its principal place 

of business located at 999 Peachtree Street Ste. 2300, Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Counterclaim 

Yealink China is a company based in Xiamen, China and headquartered at 666 Hu’an Road, Huli 

District, Xiamen, Fujian Province, 361009, China. 

Case 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP Document 19 Filed 03/18/24 Page 13 of 25 PageID #: 237
14 

2. On information and belief, Counterclaim Defendant Barco, Inc. is a company 

incorporated under the laws of Delaware, and has a principle place of business at 3059 Premiere 

Pkwy, Ste. 400, Duluth, Georgia, 30097. On information and belief, Counterclaim Defendant 

Barco NV is a company incorporated under the laws of Belgium with its principal operating 

business located at Beneluxpark 21, BE-8500 Kortrijk, Belgium. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

3. These Counterclaims arise under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 

1 et seq., and the Declaratory Judgement Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02. 

4. Subject to Yealink’s defenses and denials stated above, this Court has jurisdiction 

over the subject matter of these Counterclaims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), 1367, and 2201-

02. 

5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Barco because, inter alia, Barco has 

submitted to the jurisdiction of this Court by purposefully availing itself of the benefits and 

protections of the laws of this District by filing suit in this District. 

6. Subject to Yealink’s defenses and denials stated above, venue for this 

Counterclaim is proper in this District because Barco has consented to this venue through the 

filing of a claim of patent infringement against Yealink in this District, in response to which this 

Counterclaim is being asserted. 

COUNT I (Declaratory Judgement of Noninfringement of the ’002 Patent) 

7. Yealink realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1-6 

of its Counterclaims and all of the Defenses and Additional and Affirmative Defenses above as if 

fully set forth herein. 

8. Although Barco alleges in its Complaint that Yealink has infringed one or more 

claims of the ’002 Patent, Yealink has not infringed and does not infringe any valid and enforceable 

Case 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP Document 19 Filed 03/18/24 Page 14 of 25 PageID #: 238
15 

claim of the ’002 Patent, either directly, indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, 

because the accused instrumentalities do not practice every claimed limitation. 

9. An actual controversy exists with respect to the alleged infringement of the ’002 

Patent. 

10. Absent a declaration and order as sought by Yealink, Barco will continue to 

wrongfully assert that Yealink has infringed claims of the ’002 Patent, thereby causing Yealink 

irreparable injury and damage. 

11. A judicial determination of the respective rights of the parties with respect to the 

claims of the ’002 Patent is now necessary and appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 

COUNT II (Declaratory Judgement of Noninfringement of the ’832 Patent) 

12. Yealink realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1-11 

of its Counterclaims and all of the Defenses and Additional and Affirmative Defenses above as if 

fully set forth herein. 

13. Although Barco alleges in its Complaint that Yealink has infringed one or more 

claims of the ’832 Patent, Yealink has not infringed and does not infringe any valid and enforceable 

claim of the ’832 Patent, either directly, indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, 

because the accused instrumentalities do not practice every claimed limitation. 

14. An actual controversy exists with respect to the alleged infringement of the ’832 

Patent. 

15. Absent a declaration and order as sought by Yealink, Barco will continue to 

wrongfully assert that Yealink has infringed claims of the ’832 Patent, thereby causing Yealink 

irreparable injury and damage. 

16. A judicial determination of the respective rights of the parties with respect to the 

claims of the ’832 Patent is now necessary and appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 

Case 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP Document 19 Filed 03/18/24 Page 15 of 25 PageID #: 239
16 

COUNT III (Declaratory Judgement of Noninfringement of the ’103 Patent) 

17. Yealink realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1-16 

of its Counterclaims and all of the Defenses and Additional and Affirmative Defenses above as if 

fully set forth herein. 

18. Although Barco alleges in its Complaint that Yealink has infringed one or more 

claims of the ’103 Patent, Yealink has not infringed and does not infringe any valid and enforceable 

claim of the ’103 Patent, either directly, indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, 

because the accused instrumentalities do not practice every claimed limitation. 

19. An actual controversy exists with respect to the alleged infringement of the ’103 

Patent. 

20. Absent a declaration and order as sought by Yealink, Barco will continue to 

wrongfully assert that Yealink has infringed claims of the ’103 Patent, thereby causing Yealink 

irreparable injury and damage. 

21. A judicial determination of the respective rights of the parties with respect to the 

claims of the ’103 Patent is now necessary and appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 

COUNT IV (Declaratory Judgement of Noninfringement of the ’676 Patent) 

22. Yealink realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1-21 

of its Counterclaims and all of the Defenses and Additional and Affirmative Defenses above as if 

fully set forth herein. 

23. Although Barco alleges in its Complaint that Yealink has infringed one or more 

claims of the ’676 Patent, Yealink has not infringed and does not infringe any valid and enforceable 

claim of the ’676 Patent, either directly, indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, 

because the accused instrumentalities do not practice every claimed limitation. 

Case 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP Document 19 Filed 03/18/24 Page 16 of 25 PageID #: 240
17 

24. An actual controversy exists with respect to the alleged infringement of the ’676 

Patent. 

25. Absent a declaration and order as sought by Yealink, Barco will continue to 

wrongfully assert that Yealink has infringed claims of the ’676 Patent, thereby causing Yealink 

irreparable injury and damage. 

26. A judicial determination of the respective rights of the parties with respect to the 

claims of the ’676 Patent is now necessary and appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 

COUNT V (Declaratory Judgement of Noninfringement of the ’237 Patent) 

27. Yealink realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1-26 

of its Counterclaims and all of the Defenses and Additional and Affirmative Defenses above as if 

fully set forth herein. 

28. Although Barco alleges in its Complaint that Yealink has infringed one or more 

claims of the ’237 Patent, Yealink has not infringed and does not infringe any valid and enforceable 

claim of the ’237 Patent, either directly, indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, 

because the accused instrumentalities do not practice every claimed limitation. 

29. An actual controversy exists with respect to the alleged infringement of the ’237 

Patent. 

30. Absent a declaration and order as sought by Yealink, Barco will continue to 

wrongfully assert that Yealink has infringed claims of the ’237 Patent, thereby causing Yealink 

irreparable injury and damage. 

31. A judicial determination of the respective rights of the parties with respect to the 

claims of the ’237 Patent is now necessary and appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 

Case 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP Document 19 Filed 03/18/24 Page 17 of 25 PageID #: 241
18 

COUNT VI (Declaratory Judgement of Noninfringement of the ’951 Patent) 

32. Yealink realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1-31 

of its Counterclaims and all of the Defenses and Additional and Affirmative Defenses above as if 

fully set forth herein. 

33. Although Barco alleges in its Complaint that Yealink has infringed one or more 

claims of the ’951 Patent, Yealink has not infringed and does not infringe any valid and enforceable 

claim of the ’951 Patent, either directly, indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, 

because the accused instrumentalities do not practice every claimed limitation. 

34. An actual controversy exists with respect to the alleged infringement of the ’951 

Patent. 

35. Absent a declaration and order as sought by Yealink, Barco will continue to 

wrongfully assert that Yealink has infringed claims of the ’951 Patent, thereby causing Yealink 

irreparable injury and damage. 

36. A judicial determination of the respective rights of the parties with respect to the 

claims of the ’951 Patent is now necessary and appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 

COUNT VII (Declaratory Judgement of Invalidity of the ’002 Patent) 

37. Yealink realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1-36 

of its Counterclaims and all of the Defenses and Additional and Affirmative Defenses above as if 

fully set forth herein. 

38. Barco alleges in its Complaint that the ’002 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was 

duly issued in full compliance with Title 35 of the United States Code. However, on information 

and belief, each claim of the ’002 Patent asserted against Yealink is invalid for failing to comply 

with one or more of the requirements for patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., including 

but not limited to sections 101, 102, 103, and 112. 

Case 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP Document 19 Filed 03/18/24 Page 18 of 25 PageID #: 242
19 

39. An actual controversy exists with respect to the alleged infringement of the ’002 

Patent and the validity of the claims of the ’002 Patent. 

40. Absent a declaration and order as sought by Yealink, Barco will continue to 

wrongfully assert that Yealink has infringed the ’002 Patent, thereby causing Yealink irreparable 

injury and damage. 

41. A judicial determination of the respective rights of the parties with respect to the 

invalidity of the claims of the ’002 Patent is now necessary and appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 

2201 and 2202. 

COUNT VIII (Declaratory Judgement of Invalidity of the ’832 Patent) 

42. Yealink realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1-41 

of its Counterclaims and all of the Defenses and Additional and Affirmative Defenses above as if 

fully set forth herein. 

43. Barco alleges in its Complaint that the ’832 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was 

duly issued in full compliance with Title 35 of the United States Code. However, on information 

and belief, each claim of the ’832 Patent asserted against Yealink is invalid for failing to comply 

with one or more of the requirements for patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., including 

but not limited to sections 101, 102, 103, and 112. 

44. An actual controversy exists with respect to the alleged infringement of the ’832 

Patent and the validity of the claims of the ’832 Patent. 

45. Absent a declaration and order as sought by Yealink, Barco will continue to 

wrongfully assert that Yealink has infringed the ’832 Patent, thereby causing Yealink irreparable 

injury and damage. 

Case 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP Document 19 Filed 03/18/24 Page 19 of 25 PageID #: 243
20 

46. A judicial determination of the respective rights of the parties with respect to the 

invalidity of the claims of the ’832 Patent is now necessary and appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 

2201 and 2202. 

COUNT IX (Declaratory Judgement of Invalidity of the ’103 Patent) 

47. Yealink realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1-46 

of its Counterclaims and all of the Defenses and Additional and Affirmative Defenses above as if 

fully set forth herein. 

48. Barco alleges in its Complaint that the ’103 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was 

duly issued in full compliance with Title 35 of the United States Code. However, on information 

and belief, each claim of the ’103 Patent asserted against Yealink is invalid for failing to comply 

with one or more of the requirements for patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., including 

but not limited to sections 101, 102, 103, and 112. 

49. An actual controversy exists with respect to the alleged infringement of the ’103 

Patent and the validity of the claims of the ’103 Patent. 

50. Absent a declaration and order as sought by Yealink, Barco will continue to 

wrongfully assert that Yealink has infringed the ’103 Patent, thereby causing Yealink irreparable 

injury and damage. 

51. A judicial determination of the respective rights of the parties with respect to the 

invalidity of the claims of the ’103 Patent is now necessary and appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 

2201 and 2202. 

COUNT X (Declaratory Judgement of Invalidity of the ’676 Patent) 

52. Yealink realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1-51 

of its Counterclaims and all of the Defenses and Additional and Affirmative Defenses above as if 

fully set forth herein. 

Case 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP Document 19 Filed 03/18/24 Page 20 of 25 PageID #: 244
21 

53. Barco alleges in its Complaint that the ’676 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was 

duly issued in full compliance with Title 35 of the United States Code. However, on information 

and belief, each claim of the ’676 Patent asserted against Yealink is invalid for failing to comply 

with one or more of the requirements for patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., including 

but not limited to sections 101, 102, 103, and 112. 

54. An actual controversy exists with respect to the alleged infringement of the ’676 

Patent and the validity of the claims of the ’676 Patent. 

55. Absent a declaration and order as sought by Yealink, Barco will continue to 

wrongfully assert that Yealink has infringed the ’676 Patent, thereby causing Yealink irreparable 

injury and damage. 

56. A judicial determination of the respective rights of the parties with respect to the 

invalidity of the claims of the ’676 Patent is now necessary and appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 

2201 and 2202. 

COUNT XI (Declaratory Judgement of Invalidity of the ’237 Patent) 

57. Yealink realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1-56 

of its Counterclaims and all of the Defenses and Additional and Affirmative Defenses above as if 

fully set forth herein. 

58. Barco alleges in its Complaint that the ’237 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was 

duly issued in full compliance with Title 35 of the United States Code. However, on information 

and belief, each claim of the ’237 Patent asserted against Yealink is invalid for failing to comply 

with one or more of the requirements for patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., including 

but not limited to sections 101, 102, 103, and 112. 

59. An actual controversy exists with respect to the alleged infringement of the ’237 

Patent and the validity of the claims of the ’237 Patent. 

Case 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP Document 19 Filed 03/18/24 Page 21 of 25 PageID #: 245
22 

60. Absent a declaration and order as sought by Yealink, Barco will continue to 

wrongfully assert that Yealink has infringed the ’237 Patent, thereby causing Yealink irreparable 

injury and damage. 

61. A judicial determination of the respective rights of the parties with respect to the 

invalidity of the claims of the ’237 Patent is now necessary and appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 

2201 and 2202. 

COUNT XII (Declaratory Judgement of Invalidity of the ’951 Patent) 

62. Yealink realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1-61 

of its Counterclaims and all of the Defenses and Additional and Affirmative Defenses above as if 

fully set forth herein. 

63. Barco alleges in its Complaint that the ’951 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was 

duly issued in full compliance with Title 35 of the United States Code. However, on information 

and belief, each claim of the ’951 Patent asserted against Yealink is invalid for failing to comply 

with one or more of the requirements for patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., including 

but not limited to sections 101, 102, 103, and 112. 

64. An actual controversy exists with respect to the alleged infringement of the ’951 

Patent and the validity of the claims of the ’951 Patent. 

65. Absent a declaration and order as sought by Yealink, Barco will continue to 

wrongfully assert that Yealink has infringed the ’951 Patent, thereby causing Yealink irreparable 

injury and damage. 

66. A judicial determination of the respective rights of the parties with respect to the 

invalidity of the claims of the ’951 Patent is now necessary and appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 

2201 and 2202. 

Case 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP Document 19 Filed 03/18/24 Page 22 of 25 PageID #: 246
23 

YEALINK’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

Wherefore, Yealink respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order and Judgement 

against Barco, as follows: 

a. Granting judgement in favor of Yealink and against Barco on all counts; 

b. Dismissing with prejudice Barco’s Complaint and all purported causes of action therein 

against Yealink, denying any and all relief sought by Barco, and ordering that Barco 

take nothing by reason of its Complaint; 

c. Declaring that Yealink has not infringed and is not currently infringing any claim of 

the ’002, ’832, ’103, ’676, ’237, ’951 Patents; 

d. Declaring that the claims of the ’002, ’832, ’103, ’676, ’237, ’951 Patents are invalid; 

e. Awarding Yealink its costs and expenses incurred in this action to the extent authorized 

by applicable law, including its reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285; 

f. That Yealink be awarded its costs incurred in this action; and 

g. Awarding any other such relief as this Court deems just and proper. 

JURY DEMAND 

Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Yealink demands a trial by 

jury as to all issues so triable. 

Case 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP Document 19 Filed 03/18/24 Page 23 of 25 PageID #: 247
24 

Dated: March 18, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Natalie A. Bennett 

Natalie A. Bennett*

Illinois State Bar No. 6304611 

natalie.bennett@morganlewis.com 

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 

1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004-2541 

T: (202) 739-5559 

F: (202) 739-3001 

Elizabeth M. Chiaviello 

Texas State Bar No. 24088913 

elizabeth.chiaviello@morganlewis.com 

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 

1717 Main Street, Suite 3200 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

T. (214) 466-4000 

F. (214) 466-4001 

Ahren C. Hsu-Hoffman 

Texas State Bar No. 24053269 

ahren.hsu-hoffman@morganlewis.com 

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 

1400 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1124 

T. (650) 843-4000 

F. (650) 843-4001 

*Admitted to practice

Attorneys for Defendants Yealink (USA) 

Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink 

Network Technology Co., Ltd.

Case 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP Document 19 Filed 03/18/24 Page 24 of 25 PageID #: 248
25 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on March 18, 2024, a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was 

electronically filed and served on all counsel of record using the Court’s CM/ECF system, in 

accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 5.1. 

/s/ Natalie A. Bennett 

Natalie A. Bennett

Case 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP Document 19 Filed 03/18/24 Page 25 of 25 PageID #: 249