CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb v ALPINA Coffee Systems (CFI, 18 March 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 18 March 2026 (UPC_CFI_519/2024, with counterclaim UPC_CFI_64/2025), the Düsseldorf Local Division held that ALPINA Coffee Systems infringes claim 2 of CUP&CINO’s EP 3 398 487 (producing milk froth at adjustable temperature) with the ‘ALPINA Latte Perfetto Duo’ frother, and dismissed the counterclaim for revocation. It granted an injunction for seven states, recall, destruction, information and liability for damages in principle, but excluded advertising material from destruction and refused publication. The decision is of practical interest for its narrow reading of Art. 64(2)(e) UPCA and for limiting interim damages to EUR 4,000 in the absence of any calculation.

Facts and procedure

CUP&CINO, proprietor of the patent granted on 9 March 2022, sued the Austrian company ALPINA, which sells the accused frother in Germany and other states. A test purchase was made. ALPINA counterclaimed for revocation, and the proprietor filed auxiliary requests. At the hearing the claimant limited its requests to the period from grant, which made the limitation defence moot (paragraph 116). The Division has jurisdiction under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA, no opt-out being in force (paragraphs 26 and 27).

The applicable law

The claim is construed under Art. 69 EPC and its Protocol. Inventive step is assessed under the holistic approach adopted by the Court of Appeal. The remedies rest on Art. 25(a) read with Art. 63, 64, 67 and 68 UPCA, publication is a matter of discretion under Art. 80, and security falls under Art. 82(2) UPCA and Rule 118.8 RoP.

Question

Does ALPINA’s frother embody feature 3 of claim 2, is that claim valid, and which corrective measures should be ordered?

Decision

Feature 3 only requires the line section downstream of the throttle to have an internal diameter different from that of the upstream line, without fixing its length or the direction of the change. The narrower reading based on the preferred length of 0.5 to 2 m in the description was rejected, and fittings through which the mixture flows may form part of the line (paragraphs 35 to 44). The feature is disclosed in the application as filed (paragraphs 46 to 53). None of the prior art relied on discloses feature 3 or prompts the skilled person towards it (paragraphs 54 to 104), so the auxiliary requests were not examined (paragraph 105).

Feature 3 is reproduced: the inner diameter of the line increases from 2 mm upstream of the throttle to 4 mm downstream, at the coupling piece some 8 cm before the outlet, the claim not requiring a constant diameter up to the outlet (paragraph 107). The claimant’s comparative test shows an improvement, even a slight one, in the fineness and homogeneity of the foam, which is enough since the patent sets no threshold. The witness statement relied on by ALPINA, which does not compare the foam with and without the coupling piece, does not rebut that result (paragraphs 108 and 109). The declaration of infringement rests on Article 64(2)(a) UPCA (paragraph 111). The injunction is not disproportionate (paragraph 113). Destruction, extended to three months to allow for the recall, does not cover advertising material, which is not material or equipment used in manufacture (paragraphs 115 to 118). In the absence of a calculation, interim damages were limited to the fixed fee of EUR 4,000 (Rule 119 RoP, paragraphs 120 and 121). Publication was refused, there being no legitimate interest beyond publication on the UPC website (paragraphs 123 to 126). No security was required, ALPINA having provided no figures (paragraphs 128 to 130). The costs of the action were split (85% to ALPINA) and those of the counterclaim were borne by it.

Key points for practice

• Advertising material depicting the infringing product falls outside destruction under Art. 64(2)(e) UPCA (paragraph 117).
• Interim damages under Rule 119 RoP require a calculation. Without one, only the fixed fee is awarded (paragraph 121).
• The Division found no legitimate interest in publication beyond the UPC’s own online publication of the decision (paragraph 126).
• Practical point: a defendant seeking security must support the request with sales figures and evidence of the alleged harm to its core business (paragraph 130).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 25(a), 32(1)(a) and (e), 33(1)(a), 63(2), 64(2)(a), (b) and (e) and (4), 67(1), 68(1), 69, 80 and 82(2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 118.5, 118.8, 119, 131.2(e) and 158

European Patent Convention

Art. 69 and Protocol on its interpretation

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Art. 24(4), 71a and 71b

Case law cited

NanoString v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, Mammut v Ortovox, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024, expert v Seoul Viosys, Court of Appeal, 2 October 2025, Amgen v Sanofi, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, Meril v Edwards, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, Franz Kaldewei v Bette, Düsseldorf Local Division, 3 July 2024, Ortovox v Mammut, Düsseldorf Local Division, 14 January 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.