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
Dolby International ABvsRoku, Inc.
This case concerns an application by Sun Patent Trust for review of an order concerning interim measures against Roku, Inc. in proceedings involving European Patents EP 2 903 267 and EP 3 200 463. The dispute arose after Roku filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking, among other things, an anti-suit injunction against Sun Patent Trust. The court addressed key questions regarding cost allocation under Rule 360 RoP, the necessity of prior cease-and-desist letters before seeking interim measures, and the circumstances under which such warnings are dispensable.
SES-imagotag SAvsHanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Netherlands B.V.
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal concerning European Patent EP 3883277, which relates to electronic shelf labels for displaying information such as prices in retail environments. The appellant, VusionGroup SA (formerly SES-imagotag SA), challenged an order from the Local Chamber Munich dated December 20, 2023, in proceedings involving the respondents Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd and its German, French, and Dutch subsidiaries. The appeal concerned the interpretation of patent claims, the scope of protection, and alleged infringement in the context of an application for provisional measures.
Easee B.V., Yves Prevoo, Easee Holding B.V.vsRespondent
This order from the Hamburg Local Division of the Court of First Instance concerns an application by the Defendants to stay proceedings following the insolvency of two of the three Defendants. Easee B.V. and Easee Holding B.V. were declared bankrupt by the Amsterdam District Court on 27 and 30 May 2025 respectively. The Court granted the stay of proceedings in their entirety for a period of three months under Rule 311.1 RoP, holding that the insolvency of a party does not lead to an automatic stay but that the Court shall stay proceedings upon such declaration.
Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A., Lepu Medcial Technology (Peking) Co., Ltd.vsOcclutech GmbH
This procedural order was issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in case UPC_CFI_630/2025 concerning European Patent EP 1 998 686 B1. The applicant Occlutech GmbH sought interim measures against Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Peking) Co., Ltd., who challenged both infringement and validity of the patent-in-suit. The court ordered the addition of a technically qualified judge to the panel to ensure proper assessment of the patent's validity at the interim measures stage.
Occlutech GmbHvsLepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. a.o.
Occlutech GmbH, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 387 951 B1 covering a braided implantable occlusion device, sought provisional measures against Lepu Medical entities for alleged infringement with their 'MemoCarna ASD' and 'MemoCarna VSD' devices. The Local Division Hamburg held that the Defendants' recent CE-mark approval, combined with their public marketing activities and trade fair participation, established imminent infringement and territorial jurisdiction in Germany. The court granted the preliminary injunction, ordering the Defendants to cease and desist from offering, placing on the market, or using the infringing devices in Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Ireland, with a penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per non-compliance.
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.