Alpina Coffee Systems v CUP&CINO (CFI, UPC_CFI_68/2025, 22 October 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 30 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

This entry corresponds to the counterclaim for revocation UPC_CFI_68/2025, decided by the Düsseldorf Local Division on 22 October 2026 in respect of EP 3 281 569 B1, together with the infringement action UPC_CFI_47/2025. The infringement action is dismissed, the patent is revoked for Austria, Germany, Denmark, France, Italy and the Netherlands in everything going beyond dependent claim 12 and claim 13 as dependent on it, and the counterclaim is dismissed for the remainder. The decision carries three headnotes on how requests are to be presented and on the scope of the validity assessment for dependent claims.

Facts and procedure

The patentee had brought an infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division, met by a counterclaim for revocation. At the interim stage the claimant introduced new requests based on the scope of the patent as resulting from auxiliary requests. At the oral hearing the parties agreed to recognise recoverable representation costs up to eighty thousand euros for both the infringement action and the counterclaim.

The applicable law

The decision applies the Rules of Procedure on the presentation of requests and on auxiliary requests, together with the conditions of validity of the European patent, the assessment bearing on the claim combinations actually defended.

Question

Until what stage may a claimant adapt its infringement requests to auxiliary requests, and which claim combinations does the validity assessment cover where a dependent claim refers back to several claims?

Decision

Requests introduced for the first time at the interim stage, based on the scope of the patent as resulting from the auxiliary requests, together with the supporting submissions, are not admitted. Where dependent claims or amended wordings are the subject of auxiliary requests, it must be possible to adapt the infringement action accordingly, but the claimant must do so at the same time as it relies on the amendments to the patent. Where a claim refers back to several claims, if the claimant does not set out in a substantiated way that it intends to defend all the combinations, the validity assessment is limited to the main claim, and if it does not state precisely which combinations it considers valid, the assessment covers every combination caught by the wording of the dependent claim, the invalidity of one of them rendering the dependent claim invalid as a whole. The Division dismisses the infringement action, revokes the patent in part in six member states, leaves the costs of the action with the claimant and apportions those of the counterclaim at eighty per cent for the claimant and twenty per cent for the defendant, the value of each proceeding being set at five hundred thousand euros.

Key points for practice

• Adapting the infringement action to auxiliary requests must be done at the same time as those requests, failing which it is refused at the interim stage.
• Where a dependent claim refers back to several claims, the combinations defended must be identified precisely, or the validity assessment will cover every possible combination.
• Invalidity of a single combination caught by the wording renders the dependent claim invalid as a whole.
• An agreement on a cap for recoverable costs makes the small-enterprise discussion moot where the cap is not reached.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

rules on auxiliary requests and the interim procedure

EPC

conditions of patentability

Related decisions

• CUP&CINO v Alpina Coffee Systems (CFI, 22 October 2026), same decision, entry for the infringement action.
• CUP&CINO v Alpina Coffee Systems (CFI, 22 October 2026), decision of the same day on EP 3 610 762.

Only the official text is authentic.