2026-03-18 - LD Düsseldorf - Alpina Coffee Systems et al. v. Cup Cino Kaffeesystem Vertrieb et al. - UPC_CFI_519/2024

GERMAN: Von der Vernichtungsmaßnahme ausgenommen sind Werbematerialien, weil diese nicht vom Ge-setzeswortlaut erfasst werden. Art. 64 Abs. 2 (e) EPGÜ nennt die Vernichtung der Erzeugnisse und/oder betreffenden Materialien und Geräten. Mit letzteren sind solche Materialien und Geräte gemeint, die zur Herstellung der Erzeugnisse dienen. ENGLISH: Advertising materials are exempt from destruction because they are not covered by the wording of the law. Art. 64 (2)(e)UPCA refers to the destruction of products and/or relevant materials and equipment. The latter refers to materials and equipment used in the production of the products.

The Düsseldorf Local Division upheld a milk-foam patent against a revocation counterclaim and found the attacked frother to infringe, on a claim reading that leaves the geometry of the downstream pipe section entirely to the skilled person. The claim requires only that a section downstream of the throttle have an internal diameter different from the pipe upstream; it fixes neither where that section begins or ends, nor its length, nor whether the diameter grows or shrinks. A description passage giving a preferred length of 0.5 to 2 metres is one embodiment and, read together with a dependent claim reciting exactly that length, does not narrow the independent claim. The functional limit lies where the section no longer improves foam quality — and a slight improvement suffices, because the patent prescribes no degree. On that reading an 8 cm coupling piece widening the line from 2 mm to 4 mm just before the outlet infringes. The headnote concerns destruction: Art. 64(2)(e) UPCA names products and the relevant materials and equipment, which means materials and equipment used to make the products, so advertising material that merely depicts the products is outside the wording. Publication was refused for want of any legitimate interest beyond the Court's own publication. Interim damages fell back from the EUR 50 000 claimed to the fixed court fee of EUR 4 000, because the claimant filed no R. 131.2(e) RoP calculation of the value of the damages proceedings — the figure being the fixed fee that R. 132 RoP together with Section I of the Court fee table, as amended with effect from 1 January 2026, always levies.