Short Summary
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court found that ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH infringed claim 2 of European Patent EP 3 398 487 B1 (owned by CUP&CINO) through its ALPINA Latte Perfetto Duo milk frother. The court dismissed ALPINA's counterclaim for revocation of the patent and granted relief including an injunction, destruction orders, information obligations, and recall orders, while holding that advertising materials are exempt from destruction under Art. 64(2)(e) UPCA.
Detailed Summary
This case concerns European Patent EP 3 398 487 B1, owned by CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG (the Claimant), which was filed on May 3, 2017 and granted on March 9, 2022. The patent relates to a method and device for producing milk foam with adjustable temperature, where milk from at least one container and air supplied by a pump are drawn in as a milk/air mixture, conveyed through a flow heater and heated, and then converted into milk foam in a throttling device. Claim 2, which was at the center of the dispute, defines the corresponding apparatus featuring a thick-film heating element with a temperature-controllable electrical resistance element, and different inner diameters of the conduit upstream and downstream of the throttling device.
The Defendant, ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH, is an Austrian manufacturer of coffee and espresso machines that distributes its products in numerous countries, including Germany. CUP&CINO purchased an ALPINA Latte Perfetto Duo milk frother through a test purchase in Germany, which formed the basis of the infringement action. The Claimant argued that the internal diameter of the plastic hose upstream of the throttling device (approximately 2 mm) was smaller than the internal diameter of the coupling part downstream (approximately 4 mm, with a length of about 8 cm), and considering the conduit area of the elbow connector, the total length with expanded diameter downstream of the throttling device was approximately 10 cm, thereby infringing claim 2.
The Claimant sought a finding of infringement, an injunction covering Austria, Germany, Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Portugal, a coercive penalty of up to €3,000 per day of non-compliance, destruction of infringing products and advertising materials, information and accounting obligations, recall of infringing products from commercial customers, and a publication order. The Defendant raised a counterclaim for revocation of the patent.
The court found that the ALPINA Latte Perfetto Duo milk frother infringed claim 2 of the patent. The counterclaim for revocation was dismissed. The court granted the injunction, information and accounting obligations, and recall orders. Regarding destruction, the court held that advertising materials are exempt from destruction because they are not covered by the wording of Art. 64(2)(e) UPCA, which refers to destruction of products and/or relevant materials and equipment used in the production of the products. The destruction order was therefore limited to the infringing products themselves.
The court ordered the Defendant to bear 85% of the costs of the main infringement action and 15% to be borne by the Claimant, while the Defendant bore all costs of the counterclaim for revocation. The value in dispute was set at €500,000 for each of the main action and the counterclaim, with the maximum recoverable representation costs set at €112,000. The decision was rendered on March 18, 2026 by a panel consisting of Presiding Judge Thomas, legally qualified Judges Dr. Thom and Kupecz, and technically qualified Judge Parrini. An appeal could be filed within two months of service of the decision.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG vs ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
AIM Sport Development AGvsSupponor Oy, Supponor Limited, Supponor SASU, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor España SL
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed whether the withdrawal of an opt-out under Article 83(4) UPCA is ineffective when national court proceedings were commenced prior to the transitional period. The Court held that the phrase 'Unless an action has already been brought before a national court' refers only to actions brought during the transitional regime, not to pre-existing national proceedings. Consequently, the Court of Appeal set aside the Court of First Instance's orders and referred the infringement action and provisional measures application back for further adjudication.
BioNTech SE and OthersvsPromosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute
This order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by the BioNTech and Pfizer defendants for protection of confidential information under Rule 262A RoP in a patent infringement action and counterclaim for revocation involving European patent EP 2 401 365. The court rejected the requests, finding that the confidential information was already protected by an existing confidentiality order dated 10 March 2025, and that the information related to license agreements between the Claimant and the patent proprietor, who were already aware of it. The decision on a request to hold oral hearings behind closed doors was deferred to the oral hearing itself.
Belparts Group N.V.vsIMI Hydronic International SA, IMI Hydronic Engineering AB
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance scheduling proceedings in an infringement action concerning European patent no. 3 812 870. The panel decided not to bifurcate the proceedings and will hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation together, setting an interim videoconference for 24 March 2026 and an in-person oral hearing in Munich for 18 June 2026.
Barco N.V.vsYealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.
This Order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, dated 21 August 2025, concerns Yealink's Request for simultaneous interpretation from English into Mandarin Chinese during an oral hearing scheduled for 22 September 2025 in Luxembourg. Yealink, the defendant in proceedings for provisional measures concerning EP 3 732 827, argued that interpretation was necessary because it is based in China and its representatives would have difficulty following the proceedings. The Court of Appeal denied the Request, holding that UPC proceedings are adversarial and commercial in nature, that parties must be represented by lawyers or patent attorneys familiar with the language of proceedings, and that the voluntary presence of company officials does not justify court-ordered interpretation.
Dolby International ABvsBeko Germany GmbH & Arçelik A.Ş.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 3 605 534 B1. The court granted the plaintiff Dolby International AB's application under R. 36 RoP for leave to file a further written submission addressing the FRAND objection raised by the defendants Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş. The court found the additional submission appropriate for reasons of fairness, equity, efficiency, and the right to be heard, noting no prejudice to the defendants and no procedural delay.
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.