Key takeaways
Claims introduced for the first time during the interim proceedings in the infringement action, based on the scope of the patent in dispute within the framework of the auxiliary requests and the related submission of facts, are not admissible
The claimant sought, for the first time during the interim procedure, to extend its infringement allegations to several auxiliary requests. The Court rejected this on three independent grounds, R. 263.1 RoP, R. 263.2 RoP, R. 30.2 RoP and R. 9.2 RoP. The claimant had not justified why the amendment could not have been made earlier (R. 263.2a RoP) and the defendant was procedurally prejudiced (R. 263.2b RoP). The claimant had not submitted arguments in time during written procedure (R. 9.2 RoP).
Where auxiliary requests are based on amended claim wording or on dependent claims, the infringement action must be adapted at the same time the patent amendments are asserted (R. 30.2 RoP)
It must be possible to adapt an infringement action to dependent claims or amended claim wording raised via auxiliary requests. However, a claimant must exercise this option simultaneously with asserting the patent amendments, not at a later procedural stage.
Validity review of multiply-dependent claims extends to all covered claim combinations unless the patentee substantiates which specific combination it defends
It is possible to defend validity of a patent by its dependent claims, e.g., in order of grant. Where a claimant does not specify which combination of cross-referenced claims it considers valid, the Court must examine every combination covered by the dependent claim’s wording. If a single covered combination is invalid, the entire dependent claim fails. Here, claims 1 to 11 were found to be not novel, with claims 12 and claim 13 (as far as dependent on claim 12) being upheld.
“A heating element” was construed as a generic term under Art. 69 EPC, not limited to a single physical component, despite the defendant’s compactness arguments
The term “einzige” (single) used elsewhere in the claim to denote numerical exclusivity for a different component but not for the heating element as well as the description did not exclude multiple heating components connected in series to be understood to be comprised by the term “a heating element”.
The infringement action was dismissed for insufficient pleading and the claimant designated different lines as the claim’s “first line” for different claim features
The only claim held valid required a “first line” connectable to a cleaning reservoir. The claimant has not submitted how the attacked embodiments show this feature. The claimant’s own submissions attributed the “first line” function to one line for claim 1 purposes, but to different lines for the cleaning-circuit feature, creating an unresolved contradiction.
Division
Local Division Düsseldorf
UPC number
UPC_CFI_47/2025, UPC_CFI_68/2025
Type of proceedings
Infringement action and counterclaim for revocation
Parties
Claimant: CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG
Defendant: ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
Patent(s)
EP 3 281 569 B1
Jurisdictions
Austria, Germany, Denmark, France, Italy, Netherlands
Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 263.1, 263.2 RoP, Rule 30.2 RoP, Rule 9.2 RoP, Art. 69 EPC
