ALPINA Coffee Systems v CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb (CoA, 24 March 2026)
| Date | 24 March 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Application Rop 223 |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CoA_44/2026 |
| Registry reference | UPC-COA-0000044/2026 |
| Parties | ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH v. CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
In an order of 24 March 2026 (UPC_CoA_44/2026), the Court of Appeal rejects ALPINA Coffee Systems’ application for suspensive effect of its appeal against the Düsseldorf Local Division’s decision of 18 March 2026, which had largely upheld CUP&CINO’s infringement action (EP 3 398 487) and dismissed the counterclaim for revocation. The order confirms that suspensive effect remains the exception and cannot rest on the uncertain outcome of parallel cases.
Question
Can suspensive effect be granted pending the outcome of parallel cases on other patents, or in view of a possible need to redesign the product?
Decision
The application is admissible but unfounded (paragraph 9). Suspensive effect is an exception (Art. 74(1) UPCA), conceivable where the decision is manifestly wrong, where enforcement would render the appeal largely pointless, or where a breach of a fundamental procedural right may have affected the outcome (paragraphs 10 to 12). ALPINA relies on none of these grounds and does not engage with the impugned decision (paragraphs 13 and 15). The harm from a redesign is not substantiated (paragraph 16). The outcome of the parallel cases cannot be assessed and suspensive effect cannot rest on future events. Delaying enforcement would amount to rewarding possible repeated infringement (paragraphs 17 and 18). General assertions about costs and reputational risk are insufficient (paragraph 19).
Key points for practice
- Practical point: an application for suspensive effect must attack the decision itself and substantiate the harm from enforcement, waiting for other proceedings is not enough.
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Art. 74(1)
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 223.1 and 223.2(a) and (b)
- Case law cited
- Knaus Tabbert, Court of Appeal, 21 May 2025, Windhager v Belissa, Court of Appeal, 2 December 2025, Amycel, Court of Appeal, 16 January 2026, Ocado, Court of Appeal, 6 November 2023, Progress Maschinen & Automation, Court of Appeal, 2 May 2024, Philips v Belkin, Court of Appeal, 29 October 2024, RiVOLUTiON v Cilag, Court of Appeal, 15 August 2025
Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.
Going further
Lexicon: UPC Court of Appeal.
Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.
Source and translations
- Official source
- Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
- Original language
- not recorded
- Translation available
- no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
- Date checked
- not recorded
Follow this case
Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.
Parties
- defendantCUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG12 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH12 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Application Rop 223
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La demande d'effet suspensif de l'appel contre la décision de contrefaçon est rejetée.
- Appeal
- Decision of the Court of Appeal.
- Instance
- Court of Appeal decision.
Patents mentioned
EP 3 398 487mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Applicant *** v Amycel (CoA, 16 January 2026) cited in this record
- Windhager Handelsgesellschaft v bellissa HAAS (CoA, 2 December 2025) cited in this record
- RiVOLUTiON v Cilag International (CoA, 15 August 2025) cited in this record
- Knaus Tabbert v Erwin Härtwich (CoA, 21 May 2025) cited in this record
- Koninklijke Philips v Belkin (CoA, 29 October 2024) cited in this record
- Progress Maschinen & Automation v AWM (CoA, 2 May 2024) cited in this record
- Ocado Innovation v Third Party (CoA, 6 November 2023) cited in this record
- NUNA International v CYBEX (CoA, 21 August 2026) cites this decision
- Siemens Healthineers v Hologic (CoA, 15 July 2026) cites this decision
- Gilead Sciences v Academy of Military Medical Sciences (CFI, 10 July 2026) cites this decision
- Xingi v Avient Protective Materials (CoA, 26 May 2026) cites this decision
- Polytechnik Luft- und Feuerungstechnik v Dall Energy (CoA, 24 April 2026) cites this decision
- La Siddhi Consultancy v Athena Pharmaceutiques (CoA, 14 April 2026) cites this decision
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 3 398 487 | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 3 other decision(s): CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb v ALPINA Coffee Systems (CFI, 18 March · CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb v ALPINA Coffee Systems (CFI, 4 August · CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb v ALPINA COFFEE SYSTEMS (CFI, 13 Septem | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
Receive an alert
Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.