Short Summary
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH's request for suspensive effect (stay of enforcement) of its appeal against a decision of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The underlying decision of March 18, 2026 had largely found that ALPINA's milk frother 'ALPINA Latte Perfetto Duo' infringed European Patent EP 3 398 487, while ALPINA's counterclaim for revocation was unsuccessful. ALPINA filed its appeal on March 19, 2026, and sought suspensive effect at least until it becomes clear whether and to what extent CUP&CINO will seek enforcement in parallel proceedings concerning related European patents.
Detailed Summary
ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH, based in Kirchbichl, Austria, is a manufacturer of coffee and espresso machines and markets, among other products, a milk frother designated 'ALPINA Latte Perfetto Duo' (the accused embodiment). CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG, based in Hövelhof, Germany, contends that the manufacture, offering, and distribution of this embodiment infringes European Patent EP 3 398 487 (the patent in suit).
In 2023, CUP&CINO had previously sought preliminary measures against ALPINA before the Local Chamber Vienna in connection with the same patent, but that request was rejected in September 2023 for lack of infringement. Subsequently, on September 11, 2024, CUP&CINO filed an infringement action against ALPINA before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf (case UPC_CFI_519/2024), also asserting infringement of European Patents 3 281 569 and 3 610 762 by the same embodiment. ALPINA filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent in suit (UPC_CFI_64/2025).
By order of October 24, 2024, the Local Chamber severed the proceedings into three separate cases (EP 3 281 569 = UPC_CFI_47/2025; EP 3 610 762 = UPC_CFI_52/2025). Oral hearings initially scheduled for February 2026 in all three proceedings were rescheduled shortly before the dates, with the new hearing dates for UPC_CFI_47/2025 and UPC_CFI_52/2025 set for July 2026.
On March 18, 2026, the Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued its decision on the merits, largely granting CUP&CINO's infringement claim with respect to EP 3 398 487, while ALPINA's counterclaim for revocation was unsuccessful on the merits. On March 19, 2026, ALPINA filed an appeal against this decision, challenging both the infringement ruling and the rejection of its revocation counterclaim. Concurrently, ALPINA filed a request for suspensive effect, seeking a stay of enforcement of the infringement ruling at least until it is determined whether and to what extent CUP&CINO will seek enforcement in the parallel proceedings UPC_CFI_47/2025 and UPC_CFI_52/2025, and alternatively until the decisions in those parallel proceedings are pronounced. The text of the order is cut off before the full scope of ALPINA's request regarding the extent of suspensive effect is set out, and before the appellate court's reasoning and final ruling are disclosed.
& Analysis: The available text does not contain the full reasoning of the Court of Appeal, as the document is truncated before the analysis section is presented.
Final Order & Ruling: The available text does not contain the final ruling of the Court of Appeal, as the document is truncated before the operative part of the order is set out. The presiding and reporting judge is Ulrike Voß, and the appeal case number is UPC_CoA_44/2026.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH vs CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.