CUP&CINO v ALPINA Coffee Systems (CFI, UPC_CFI_52/2025, 22 October 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 22 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By a decision of 22 October 2026 (UPC_CFI_52/2025, counterclaim for revocation UPC_CFI_67/2025), Panel 2 of the Düsseldorf Local Division dismisses the action brought by CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG against ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH for infringement of EP 3 610 762, both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, applying the equivalence test of the Hague Local Division, and dismisses the counterclaim for revocation, so that the patent stands as granted.

Facts and procedure

CUP&CINO owns EP 3 610 762, filed on 16 August 2018 and granted on 16 June 2021, which relates to a device for processing a liquid, in particular milk, with an integrated rinsing system, and to a rinsing method. It alleged that the ALPINA Latte Perfetto Duo milk frother, obtained through a test purchase in Germany, infringes claims 1, 4, 5 and 6, and sought among other things an injunction for Austria, Germany, Denmark, France, Italy and the Netherlands, destruction, information, damages and an interim award of EUR 50,000. ALPINA asked for dismissal and counterclaimed for revocation in those six states to the extent of claims 1, 4, 5 and 6, while CUP&CINO filed five auxiliary requests. Following an order of the judge-rapporteur of 28 April 2026 and the patentee’s submission of 15 May 2026, the oral hearing took place on 18 July 2026. The dispute turned on the feature requiring « directly closing » (direkt schließend) non-return valves, since the accused product has a spring-loaded non-return valve and a spring-loaded 2/2-way switching valve in the air supply line.

Question

Can spring-assisted valves be « directly closing » non-return valves within the meaning of claim 1, literally or by equivalence, and does the resulting construction leave the patent valid?

Decision

The panel holds that claim 1 requires non-return valves opened by gravity or by the medium, not by a spring, as the description presents spring-loaded valves as a source of unreliable opening and vibration (paras. 42 to 44). The accused product, fitted with spring-loaded valves, therefore does not literally meet features 3.4.3 and 4 (paras. 58 to 60). Noting that the Court of Appeal has yet to rule on the criteria for equivalence, the panel applies the four-question test of the Hague Local Division (Plant-e v Arkyne, UPC_CFI_239/2023, 22 November 2024), as Panel 1 did in Wonderland v Cybex (paras. 61 and 62). Equivalence fails because the patentee does not show that the variant performs the same function (para. 67) and because the skilled person would not infer from the patent that its scope extends to spring-loaded valves (para. 69). Dependent claims 4, 5 and 6, which require the same valves, are not infringed either (para. 70). The counterclaim fails: the invention is sufficiently disclosed (para. 51) and none of the inventive step combinations leads the skilled person to directly closing valves (para. 55). Each party bears the costs of the action it lost, and the value of each of the two actions is set at EUR 500,000.

Key points for practice

• Panel 2 in Düsseldorf expressly adopts the Hague four-question equivalence test already followed by Panel 1, observing that the Court of Appeal has not yet ruled on these criteria (paras. 61 and 62).
• Failure on the first question is enough to rule out equivalence where the patentee does not explain how the variant performs the same technical function (para. 67), and a description that discards a solution prevents the skilled person from reading it as an equivalent (para. 69).
• The narrow construction that defeats infringement also disposes of the inventive step attacks built on the patentee’s broad reading (para. 55).
• The parties had agreed a joint ceiling of EUR 75,000 for recoverable representation costs across the action and the counterclaim (para. 73).

Provisions applied

UPC Agreement

Articles 32(1)(e), 33(1)(a), 69(2) and 83(3) UPCA

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.2, 19.7, 118.5, 263 and 265.2(c) RoP

EPC

Article 69 EPC and its Protocol

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Articles 24(4), 71a and 71b

Related decisions

• CUP&CINO v ALPINA Coffee Systems, 28 April 2026, order of the judge-rapporteur in UPC_CFI_52/2025 structuring the submissions on claim construction, validity and auxiliary requests ahead of the hearing.
• CUP&CINO v ALPINA Coffee Systems, 28 April 2026, the same order published in the counterclaim for revocation UPC_CFI_67/2025.
• Wonderland Nurserygoods v Cybex, 27 May 2026, decision of Panel 1 in Düsseldorf (UPC_CFI_807/2024) whose approach to equivalence the present decision follows.
• CUP&CINO v ALPINA Coffee Systems, 22 October 2026, decision of the same day between the same parties on EP 3 281 569.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 22 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.