CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v. ALPINA COFFEE SYSTEMS GmbH

UPC-001711

Unified Patent Court decision.

Jurisdiction
European UPC
Court
Vienna (AT) Local Division
Case Number
UPC-001711
Decision Date
13 September 2023

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Vienna (AT) 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

patentUPC-000355

Sanofi SA and related Sanofi entitiesvsAccord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva entities

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning infringement actions related to European Patent No. 2 493 466. The Presiding Judge confirmed that expert testimony from two party experts would be heard at the oral hearing scheduled for 14-17 October 2025, addressing questions about the Phase III TROPIC study and reasonable expectation of success. The order summons the party experts and sets out the schedule, structure, and procedural framework for their testimony.

patentUPC-000874

Hurom Co., Ltd.vsNUC Electronics Europe GmbH, WARMCO

The Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court addressed a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 028 981 B1, which relates to a juice extractor. The Claimant, Hurom Co., Ltd., alleged that slow juicers marketed by the Defendants under the name 'AUTO10' infringed the patent. The court established key principles on the intertemporal applicability of substantive law under the UPCA versus national laws, holding that UPCA applies to ongoing infringing acts continued after 1 June 2023, and that information rights under the UPCA extend to pre-entry-into-force periods. The court found partial infringement and ordered remedies including injunctive relief, information disclosure, destruction, recall, and removal from commerce.

patentUPC-000690

Malikie Innovations Ltd.vsDiscord Inc. and Discord Netherlands B.V.

This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning an infringement action regarding European patent EP 3 716 655. The defendants, Discord Inc. and Discord Netherlands B.V., belong to the same group of companies and requested harmonization of time periods for submitting their Statements of Defence and lodging any Counterclaim for Revocation, to which the claimant consented. The court granted the request, setting a uniform deadline of 2 July 2025 for both defendants.

patentUPC-000642

Fingon LLCvsSamsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S.

This case concerns a patent infringement action regarding EP 2 839 403 before the Mannheim Local Division. The Defendants objected to the Claimant's reply, arguing it introduced new Trusted Applications and Samsung Galaxy S25 models without seeking leave to amend the case under R. 263 RoP. The Court held that the reply did not constitute an amendment of the case as it merely provided further illustrative examples of the attacked embodiment, and dismissed the Defendants' requests while postponing the decision on exclusion of impugned submissions until after the oral hearing.

patentUPC-000258

Adeia Guides Inc.vsThe Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. et al.

Procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) following an interim conference in a patent infringement action brought by Adeia Guides Inc. against three Walt Disney entities concerning European Patent EP1969839. The court set the value of the dispute at €12 million, granted a confidentiality club, and addressed various procedural matters including late-filed prior art references and parallel litigation in multiple jurisdictions.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call