UPC Düsseldorf rejects two infringement suits, clarifies procedural and equivalence standards

Context: German coffee system supplier CUP&CINO and Austrian manufacturer ALPINA have been involved in a series of UPC patent disputes concerning ALPINA’s Latte Perfetto Duo milk-frothing system. In March 2026, the UPC’s Düsseldorf Local Division (LD) found that ALPINA infringed CUP&CINO’s EP3398487 (“method and device for producing milk foam”) and issued an injunction covering seven countries (see Section 2.4 of ip fray’s March 22, 2026 UPC roundup). The latest proceedings concern two different patents asserted against the same product.

What’s new: Today, the UPC’s Düsseldorf LD dismissed two infringement actions brought by CUP&CINO against ALPINA concerning EP3281569 (“modular foam unit”) and EP3610762 (“device for treating a liquid, in particular milk, with integrated rinsing system and method for rinsing”). In the first ruling, the court partially revoked the patent and clarified procedural requirements for infringement allegations based on auxiliary requests and the validity assessment of multiply dependent claims. In the second, it upheld the challenged patent claims but rejected infringement, confirming that both Düsseldorf panels now apply the Hague LD’s four-part test for infringement by equivalence.

Direct impact: ALPINA successfully defended both infringement actions, avoiding additional injunctions against its Latte Perfetto Duo milk-frothing system. CUP&CINO’s ‘569 was partially revoked in six countries, while the challenged claims of ‘762 remained valid despite the unsuccessful infringement action. CUP&CINO can, and presumably will, appeal.  

Wider ramifications: The decisions underscore the consequences of the UPC’s front-loaded procedure for patent owners seeking to defend amended claims while maintaining infringement allegations. They also signal growing consistency in the application of the doctrine of equivalence, with both Düsseldorf panels now following the Hague LD’s approach despite the absence of binding appellate guidance. The rulings also reinforce the need for patent owners to substantiate specific dependent-claim combinations and align infringement allegations with auxiliary requests when seeking to preserve narrower patent protection.