Opens in a new tab

ALPINA Coffee Systems v CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb (CoA, 24 March 2026)

Date24 March 2026
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionApplication Rop 223
Case number(s)UPC_CoA_44/2026
Registry referenceUPC-COA-0000044/2026
PartiesALPINA 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.

Contact the firm

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

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
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

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.

Proceedings

  • UPC_CoA_44/2026 official number

Follow this case

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

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

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 3 398 487Mentioned 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 recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.