The Court of The Hague on compostable coffee capsules: a technical difference makes all the difference

Ox Barrier’s claim fails in preliminary injunction proceedings against De Koffiejongens

Compostable coffee capsules, a patent on sustainable packaging, and a supermarket deal that suddenly raised the stakes: all the ingredients were there for a high-impact patent dispute. Yet in preliminary injunction proceedings, Ox Barrier did not obtain the sales ban it sought against De Koffiejongens. In its decision of 20 March 2026, the District Court of The Hague held, on a provisional basis, that the capsules of De Koffiejongens fall outside the scope of protection of EP 3 145 838. As a result, not only the infringement claims but also the requested ancillary measures, such as recall, disclosure of information, and delivery up of stock, were rejected.

The decision illustrates where patent disputes are often truly decided: not on the abstract idea behind an invention, but on its precise technical implementation.

A patent on a compostable coffee capsule

Ox Barrier’s patent concerns a capsule for preparing beverages, in particular the closing element of a compostable coffee capsule. The invention addresses a known problem. While traditional capsules often use aluminium, compostable alternatives require different materials. These must both provide an effective oxygen barrier to preserve freshness and allow the capsule to open in a controlled manner under pressure and heat during the brewing process.

According to the patent, this is achieved by a multilayer, essentially fully compostable film comprising, among other things, a polymer oxygen barrier layer and at least one polymer carrier layer provided with a weakened area. That carrier layer plays a key role: it is intended to support the oxygen barrier layer and ensure that the film tears, rather than stretches, under use conditions.

The move into supermarkets increased urgency

De Koffiejongens had been selling its compostable capsules online for years, but from September 2025 they also became available in approximately 800 Albert Heijn supermarkets. For Ox Barrier, this marked the moment to take action. It argued that this expansion significantly increased the alleged infringement. A cease-and-desist letter followed, and shortly thereafter, preliminary injunction proceedings.

The court agreed that Ox Barrier had a sufficient urgency. Although it had been aware of De Koffiejongens’ products for some time, the nationwide retail rollout was considered a material change in market conditions. The case was therefore assessed on the merits.

The key question: is there a “carrier layer”?

This was ultimately decisive. It was undisputed that the capsules of De Koffiejongens satisfied several features of claim 1 of the patent. The real dispute centred on the closing element and, more specifically, whether it included a carrier layer within the meaning of the patent.

The closing element of De Koffiejongens’ capsules consisted of three layers: an inner PLA layer, a middle layer of relatively thick coated paper, and an outer cellulose layer. Ox Barrier argued that this multilayer structure fell within the claim. De Koffiejongens countered that its capsule was technically different.

The court was persuaded by that argument. It found it sufficiently plausible that the middle paper layer was itself rigid enough to open properly on the pyramid plate of a coffee machine. In other words, this oxygen barrier layer did not require a carrier layer to ensure controlled tearing. That was precisely where it differed from the patented invention, which assumes an oxygen barrier layer that, without support, would tend to stretch rather than tear.

Claim interpretation is about function, not just wording

A notable aspect of the decision is that the court did not limit itself to a purely literal reading of the claim. It also relied on the description of the patent to interpret the term “carrier layer.” From that description, the court derived that the carrier layer must support, hold in place, and reinforce the oxygen barrier layer.

The inner and outer layers of De Koffiejongens’ capsules did not perform that function. The inner layer served to seal the closing element to the capsule, while the outer layer functioned as a filter. As a result, an essential feature of the claimed invention was missing.

This highlights an important point for practice: in patent cases, the meaning of a claim feature is often shaped by its technical function as explained in the description, not just by its wording in isolation.

Why this decision matters

This decision demonstrates how decisive a technical detail can be. At first glance, the case concerned competing compostable coffee capsules in the same market. Yet it was the technical difference in the structure of the closing element that led the court to conclude, at least provisionally, that there was no infringement.

For patent holders, the case is a reminder that success depends on convincingly mapping claim features onto the allegedly infringing product. For defendants, it shows that a well-supported technical defence, backed by product analysis and testing, can be highly effective in preliminary proceedings.

Ultimately, the case underscores a fundamental principle of patent law: a small technical difference can make a big legal difference.