No. From the source:
> the core mechanics, terminology, the manifest format and structure, even the package repository’s folder structure, are very inspired by AppGet.
In the update it's slightly more vague, but there's no claim of coffee being copied there either:
> Code being copied isn't an issue. I knew full well what it meant to release something opensource and I don't regret it one bit.
And continues to be more explicit about his complaint:
> What was copied with no credit is the foundation of the project.
Lastly, looking at the repo really doesn't tell you if you could get a patent on it.
He goes to say that "If I were the patenting type, this would be the thing you would patent. ps. I don't regret not patenting anything."
I mean come on. Every package has a .yaml manifest where there's a download link for every architecture, a hash, a version and an installation recipe. There's nothing to patent here. It would be extremely hard to argue there's no prior art, considering most languages and distributions have been shipping with package managers built just like these for years. Even my text editor has one!
Realistically, the author managed to get a lot of attention for his other startup for almost no cost. By bashing the company that's trendy to bash right now.