Download now: life sciences - whitepaper: building an investable ip portfolio
​

Coffee machine litigation leads to early defeat for patentee

​
Sebastian Fuchs
​
November 28, 2023
Additional information
Chevron icon
Info
Tags
UPC
Recent cases
Infringement
Opt out
Provisional injunction
Table of contents
Chevron icon
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v ALPINA COFFEE SYSTEMS GmbH, Order of 13 September 2023[1]

In a case before the Vienna Local Division, the patent holder, CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG alleged that Alpina Coffee Systems GmbH infringed a patent by offering and selling "Alpina Latte" coffee machines in Austria and sought provisional measures.

A notable aspect of the case was that shortly after the application for provisional measures was filed, a representative of the applicant had -allegedly without authorisation- filed an opt-out request, leading the respondent to argue that provisional measures could not be granted because the opt-out would prevent the applicant from filing a subsequent action on the merits with the UPC.

The Vienna Local Division decided that it was competent to hear the case despite the declared opt-out. According to the UPC, the opt-out was ineffective as the present application for provisional measures constituted an "action" brought before the UPC which effectively bars the possibility to opt out (cf. Art. 83(3) of the UPCA, "[u]nless an action has already been brought before the Court a proprietor of … A European patent … shall have the possibility to opt out from the exclusive competence of the Court.", also see R. 5(6) of the Rules of Procedure ("RoP")). In support of this, the Court referred to the English and French language versions of Art. 32(1) UPCA where the word "action" is used in the same way for both, actions for (non-)infringement (Art. 32(1) (a) and (b)), and actions for provisional measures (Art. 32(1) (c)). It added that the "blockade mechanism" laid down in the aforementioned provisions aimed to achieve that court proceedings could no longer be removed from the jurisdiction of the court regardless of their type.

The Local Division, however, ultimately refused the request for provisional measures as it did not consider the patent to be infringed.

Another interesting aspect about the case is the cost setting: As the applicant failed in obtaining the provisional measures they sought, the court decided that there was no ground (anymore) for a provisional cost reimbursement and therefore finally awarded the procedural costs to the prevailing respondent. In the present case, the defendant estimated its costs at EUR 25,600 and the court had no concerns regarding the appropriateness and reasonableness of these costs.

As the Vienna Local Division refused the request, it unfortunately did not have to decide on another notable aspect of the case, namely the question of under which circumstances the required temporal urgency of an application for provisional measures is to be denied.

[1] https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/node/480 (in German)

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

Court of Appeal focuses on the technical effect to determine added matter
30 September 2026
The Court of Appeal provided guidance on their approach to assessing added subject matter, highlighting that the technical effect underlying the invention and how the claimed and unclaimed features contribute thereto is central to the analysis.
​
Court of Appeal affirms interpretation of product-by-process features in claims, and clarifies applicable law pre-June 2023
29 September 2026
The Court of Appeal confirmed that product-by-process features in a product claim limit the claim only where the specified process imparts characteristics that can be achieved solely by that process. It also clarified the law applicable to acts occurring before 1 June 2023, holding that UPC law may apply to ongoing infringement for injunctive relief, whereas damages for acts completed before that date are governed by national law, and that claims for provisional protection remain governed by national law.
​
Appeal reveals tricky deadlines for orders contained in decisions
29 September 2026
The Court of Appeal held that where a “privileged order” under Rule 220(1)(c), such as an order relating to the production of evidence under Article 59 UPCA and Rule 190 RoP, is contained within a decision on the merits, a 15 day appeal deadline for that order applies, separate from the substantive appeal deadline. Appeals challenging such orders after that deadline are inadmissible, and parties cannot circumvent the appeal rules by re-filing substantially the same request in the appeal proceedings.
​