In its decision of 18 March 2026, the UPC Düsseldorf Local Division (“LD”) found that ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH (“ALPINA”) infringed EP 3 398 487 B1 (the “Patent”) owned by CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG (“CUP&CINO”), concerning a method and apparatus for producing milk foam at an adjustable temperature. The Court also rejected ALPINA’s counterclaim for nullity and granted wide ranging remedies including an injunction, recall, destruction, information obligations and provisional damages.
Significantly, the Court confirmed that advertising materials are not subject to destruction under Article 64(2)(e) UPCA, as they are neither products nor materials/equipment used in producing infringing goods. Hence, this decision assists with clarifying the scope of destruction measures.
Background
ALPINA is based in Austria, manufacturing coffee and espresso machines and selling them in numerous countries. In particular, it sells a specific design in Germany which CUP&CINO claimed infringed the Patent.
Prior to the merits proceedings in Düsseldorf, the same parties appeared before the Vienna LD in September 2023 in preliminary injunction proceedings. The Vienna LD refused relief, holding that ALPINA’s short (approximately 10cm) downstream section did not fall within the claimed pipeline structure as this section was deemed as being too far removed from the lengths contemplated in the Patent.
This judgment also provided an important opt out ruling. After CUP&CINO filed its PI request, an opt out was filed for the Patent. The Vienna LD held this opt out to be ineffective, confirming that once PI proceedings have begun, an opt out cannot be validly registered as a PI request constitutes an “action” in accordance with Rule 5(6) RoP.
With the opt out issue resolved and no binding effect from the PI decision, CUP&CINO pursued its infringement claim on the merits before the Düsseldorf LD.
Key Issues
The primary dispute concerned claim construction, in particular:
• whether ALPINA’s approximately 10cm downstream combination of coupling part and knee connector (approx. 4 mm inner diameter) qualified as the “line section downstream of the throttle having a different inner diameter” required by claim 2;
• whether claim 2 implicitly required a long “calming section”, as stated in an example embodiment (0.5–2 m); and
• whether fittings could form part of the claimed “line section”.
ALPINA argued that the downstream section had to be an extended calming section defined by the description and should not include fittings. CUP&CINO argued that the claim itself contains no length requirement and imposes only a structural difference in diameters, not a defined minimum length. CUP&CINO also argued that the length is not relevant for the technical effect, with even a short distance fulfilling the technical purpose.
ALPINA also counterclaimed for invalidity. ALPINA argued that if CUP&CINO’s interpretation of the Patent is accepted as part of the infringement analysis, then the Patent is inadmissibly extended. ALPINA also submitted that the invention on which the Patent is based did not involve an inventive step.
Decision and Reasoning
On construction, the Düsseldorf LD held that:
• claim 2 imposes no specific length requirement for the downstream section;
• the claim requires only a difference in diameter between upstream and downstream sections;
• a short downstream section can still contribute to flow stabilisation and foam quality;
• length ranges in the description are optional embodiments, not claim limitations; and
• fittings can form part of the “line section” through which the milk/air mixture travels.
On that basis, the Court held that ALPINA’s transition from a 2 mm upstream hose to a 4 mm downstream section fell within Claim 2 and thus infringed the Patent.
On validity, the Court rejected ALPINA’s added matter and inventive step arguments. The Court held that the differing diameter feature was directly supported in the application as filed. The Court also stated that the cited prior art did not point the skilled person towards the claimed arrangement, with each piece of cited prior art not disclosing various components included in the Patent claims.
Remedies
The remedies granted included:
• pan EU injunction (AT, DE, DK, FR, IT, NL and PT);
• destruction of infringing products within three months;
• exclusion of advertising materials from destruction, as these are not covered by Article 64(2)(e) UPCA (as these materials are not concerned with the manufacture of the infringing products);
• recall of infringing devices from commercial customers;
• information and accounting obligations;
• the Court declined to order publication of the judgment beyond publishing the judgment on the UPC’s website;
• the Court did not order the provision of security, on the basis that ALPINA failed to provide exact sales figures for the challenged embodiment but rather it merely referred in general terms to the loss of all current sales and future damage to its business;
• €4,000 provisional damages; and
• 85% of costs awarded against ALPINA.
Key takeaways
Whilst the case is notable for its claim construction analysis, and in particular its departure from the narrower interpretation applied by the Vienna LD at the PI stage, the most practically significant aspect is the confirmation that advertising materials are not subject to destruction. The decision provides valuable clarity on the boundaries of Article 64(2)(e) UPCA and limits the reach of destruction orders to actual infringing products and materials used in their manufacture.
The order (in German) can be found here.
