Opens in a new tab

CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb v ALPINA Coffee Systems (CFI, UPC_CFI_52/2025, 28 April 2026)

Date28 April 2026
CourtCFI
DivisionDüsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of actionInfringement Action
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_52/2025
Registry referenceUPC_CFI_52/2025
PartiesCUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v. ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

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

By order of 28 April 2026, issued in German in the joined proceedings UPC_CFI_52/2025 and UPC_CFI_67/2025, the presiding judge, acting as judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division, after the close of the written procedure, directed CUP&CINO, claimant in the infringement action on EP 3 610 762, and ALPINA Coffee Systems, which brought the counterclaim for revocation, to restructure their pleadings on infringement, validity and auxiliary requests to a tight timetable. The order is useful as a guide to how pleadings should be presented before this division, particularly on the burden of argument for inventive step.

Question

How must the parties present their case on construction, validity and auxiliary requests to allow an orderly decision?

Decision

Relying on Rule 332 RoP, the judge observed that the request based on equivalence appeared too vague (section I) and required a consistent construction of the patent for infringement and validity, identifying the disputed features and explaining how the attacked embodiment works (section II). The defendant bears the initial burden of establishing invalidity: reproducing a figure, listing its reference numerals and asserting that all but one feature are shown does not substantiate an inventive step attack, and the defendant may confine itself to its strongest attacks (section III). Auxiliary requests must show the added features and their basis, preferably in tracked changes (section IV). The restructured submissions are due between 15 May and 19 June 2026 (sections VI and VII).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rule 332

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: Patent infringement action.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).

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_CFI_52/2025 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

  1. 28 April 2026 CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb v ALPINA Coffee Systems (CFI, UPC_CFI_52/2025, 28 April 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_52/2025
  2. 22 October 2026 CUP&CINO v ALPINA Coffee Systems (CFI, UPC_CFI_52/2025, 22 October 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_52/2025

    La division rejette l'action en contrefaçon d'EP 3 610 762, littérale comme par équivalence, faute de clapets anti-retour à fermeture directe dans le produit attaqué, et rejette la demande reconventionnelle en nullité, le brevet étant maintenu tel que délivré.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La juge rapporteure de la division locale de Düsseldorf impose aux parties de restructurer leurs écritures sur l'interprétation, la validité et les requêtes subsidiaires selon un calendrier fixé.
Appeal
No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance
First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

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 3 610 762Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 4 other decision(s): CUP&CINO v ALPINA Coffee Systems (CFI, UPC_CFI_52/2025, 22 October 202 · CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb v ALPINA Coffee Systems (CFI, 4 August · CUP&CINO v ALPINA Coffee Systems (CFI, 22 October 2026) · Alpina Coffee Systems v CUP&CINO (CFI, UPC_CFI_68/2025, 22 October 202
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.