Texas Court Blocks Yealink From Restarting Sales After 'Bait-and-Switch'

By Haedar

Photo: Frantichek / Pixabay

A defendant that tells a jury it has stopped selling a product can be held to that statement. In Barco, Inc. v. Yealink (No. 2:23-cv-00521, E.D. Tex., order of 27 August 2026), the court granted Barco a permanent injunction over Yealink's wireless presentation dongles. Jeffer Mangels & Mitchell analysed the order on 14 October 2026.

Yealink had conceded infringement before trial and told the jury it had withdrawn the WPP20/WPP30 products from the U.S. market. The jury found no wilful infringement and awarded a lump-sum royalty of $907,360. After trial, Yealink said it would reintroduce the WPP30 in 2026. The court called this a "bait-and-switch" and found irreparable harm, noting that the two companies compete directly.

In an unusual step, the court also ordered Barco to post a $907,360 bond, because the asserted patents are under post-grant review at the USPTO. The takeaway is that litigation positions taken to reduce damages can later support an injunction.

Sources

• Jeffer Mangels & Mitchell, Patent Lawyer Blog, "Can an Infringer Restart Sales After Trial? Judge Gilstrap Says Not" (14 October 2026)