CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb v ALPINA Coffee Systems (CFI, UPC_CFI_52/2025, 28 April 2026)
| Date | 28 April 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Infringement Action |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_52/2025 |
| Registry reference | UPC_CFI_52/2025 |
| Parties | CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v. ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Case timeline
- 22 October 2026 : CUP&CINO v ALPINA Coffee Systems (CFI, UPC_CFI_52/2025, 22 October 2026) UPC_CFI_52/2025 - 22 Oct 2026
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
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
- An inventive step attack must be argued feature by feature, not by mere reference to a figure (section III).
- Auxiliary requests are best presented in tracked changes, with the basis for each amendment (section IV).
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
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
- claimantCUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG12 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH12 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
- 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
- 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
EP 3 610 762mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb v ALPINA Coffee Systems (CFI, UPC_CFI_67/2025, 28 April 2026) cites this decision
- CUP&CINO v ALPINA Coffee Systems (CFI, UPC_CFI_52/2025, 22 October 2026) cites this decision
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 3 610 762 | Mentioned 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 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.