UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 519/2024

Sep 11, 2024·EP3281569 +2 more · MODULAR FOAM UNIT

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent infringed)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Patents
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Technology
  • Other fields
    Consumer products
Language
German
First decided
Mar 18, 2026
EPO Opposition
  • Koninklijke Douwe Egberts B.V.Admissible2019-04-04
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Infringement foundMedian days to first decision
All UPC53% (62/117)124
Dusseldorf LDLockedLocked
Judge Ronny ThomasLockedLocked
Judge Berenice ThomLockedLocked
Judge András KupeczLockedLocked
Judge Lorenzo ParriniLockedLocked

At the UPC: CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG (10 cases)·Alpina Coffee Systems GmbH (10 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases

This dispute contains 9 other proceedings

UPC CoA 43/2026·UPC CoA 44/2026·UPC CFI 67/2025·UPC CFI 68/2025·UPC CFI 64/2025 and 4 more

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2024

Decisions
  • 2026-03-18
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Dusseldorf Local Division found that ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH's 'ALPINA Latte Perfetto Duo' milk frother infringes claim 2 of EP 3 398 487 B1, granted a permanent injunction covering Austria, Germany, Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Portugal, and ordered recall, destruction (expressly excluding pure advertising materials), disclosure, and EUR 4,000 in provisional damages with full damages liability established in principle. It dismissed the claimant's request to publish a notice on the defendant's website and declined to order security conditioning enforcement. The revocation counterclaim (UPC_CFI_64/2025) was dismissed after the added-matter and inventive-step attacks failed on the merits, upholding the patent.

    Show the legal issues (9)
    • claim construction
    • added matter (Art. 138(1)(c) EPC)
    • inventive step
    • permanent injunction
    • destruction (Art. 64(2)(e) UPCA) - advertising materials held exempt
    • recall
    • provisional damages (R.119 RoP)
    • publication of the decision (Art. 80 UPCA) - denied
    • security conditioning enforcement (Art. 82(2) UPCA) - denied
  • 2025-08-04
    Public

    Summary: Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order on the handling of multiple related infringement actions and counterclaims for revocation concerning three patents, deciding on the approach under Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA before close of written procedure.

    Show the legal issues (2)
    • Procedure for multiple related actions under Art. 33(3) UPCA
    • Case management before close of written procedure
Documents
Show all 201 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Order2026-06-25Not public
Order2026-06-25Not public
Receipt2026-04-27Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-27Not public
Application document Defendant2026-04-27Not public
Communication2026-04-20Not public
Receipt2026-04-20Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-20Not public
Application document Claimant2026-04-20Not public
Receipt2026-03-31Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • The ALPINA Latte Perfetto Duo milk frother realises all features of claim 2 of EP 3 398 487 B1

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25(a) UPCA

  • Feature 3 (differing internal diameters of the line sections downstream/upstream of the throttle) is directly and unambiguously disclosed in the application as filed, without an intermediate generalisation; no added matter

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 138(1)(c) EPC

  • Neither the WO255/WO729/EP952 combination nor the DE158/EP250 combination discloses all features of claim 2 or gives the skilled person a motivation to arrive at it; the inventive-step attacks fail

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 138(1)(a) EPC

  • Pure advertising materials that merely depict the attacked embodiment are not 'materials and implements' within the meaning of Art. 64(2)(e) UPCA and must be excluded from the destruction order

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 64(2)(e) UPCA
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • The patent (claims 1 and 2) is invalid for added matter and lack of inventive step over the cited prior-art combinations

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 138(1)(a) and (c) EPC

  • The injunction, recall and destruction order are disproportionate because they amount to economic destruction of the defendant

    RespondentLegal basis: proportionality

  • The claimant's request that the decision be published as a mandated notice on the defendant's website should be granted

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 80 UPCA

  • Enforcement of the decision should be conditioned on the claimant posting security

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 82(2) UPCA, R.118.8 VerfO