2026-10-22 - LD Düsseldorf - Cup Cino Kaffeesystem Vertrieb v. Alpina Coffee Systems - UPC_CFI_52/2025

Like Panel 1 of the Düsseldorf Local Division in its most recent decision (UPC_CFI_807/2024, decision of 27 May 2026, headnote 1 and para. 240 – Wonderland v Cybex), Panel 2 of the Düsseldorf Local Division also applies the assessment criteria for equivalence under patent law established by the The Hague Local Division. Das Panel 2 der Lokalkammer Düsseldorf wendet ebenso wie zuletzt auch das Panel 1 der Lokalkammer Düsseldorf (UPC_CFI_807/2024, Entscheidung vom 27. Mai 2026, Leitsatz 1 und Rn. 240 – Wonderland v. Cybex) die von der Lokalkammer Den Haag festgelegten Beurteilungskriterien für die patentrechtliche Äquivalenz an.

Panel 2 of the Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed both an infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, because the claim term 'directly closing check valves' (direkt schließende Rückschlagventile) excludes spring-loaded valves. Reading the claim with the description, which distinguishes spring-loaded valves and defines the claimed mechanism as closing by gravity and/or medium, the Court held that any spring contributing to closure takes a valve outside the claim, so the prosecution history could be left open. For equivalence, Panel 2 expressly adopted the four-question test of the Hague Local Division, as Panel 1 had done in Wonderland v Cybex, and found the first (same function) and third (legal certainty) questions not met where the patent itself excludes the variant. On validity, sufficiency requires only one way to carry out the invention, and the inventive-step attacks fell with the rejected broad construction. Costs followed the outcome of each action.