Case Law of the Swiss Federal Patent Court
Case No. O2017_014 | Hearing of 20 January 2020
Fulvestrant, a breast cancer medication of the class of antiestrogens, is probably the most frequently appearing bone of contention at the FPC to date.
Case No. O2017_007 | Decision of 1 November 2019 | ‘Beatmungsgerät’
The decision is a booklet of about 100 pages; even the recitals of the procedural history and the requests cover 37 pages.
Apparently, the FPC had to deal with its first FRAND case already back in 2018, but it had been settled and thus no judgment is available.
Case No. O2018_017 | Hearing of 18 November 2019
F.J. Aschwanden on the one hand, and acG Holding and Andreas (André) Robert on the other hand are litigating over the validity of EP 2 475 827 in Switzerland.
I had the pleasure to attend the conference on Case Management Issues in IP Proceedings earlier this week in St. Gallen, jointly organized by INGRES and SVRH.
Case No. O2016_012 | Decision of 28 October 2019 | ‘Einschlagbarer Hüftgelenkprothesengrundkörper’
We have reported about the main hearing in this matter on this Blog here.
Case No. O2017_009 | Decision of 7 November 2019 | ‘Oxycodon und Naloxon II und III’
The patents at stake in this nullity case are MundiPharma‘s EP 2 425 821 B1 (see EPO Register and Swissreg) and EP 2 425 824 B1 (see EPO Register and Swissreg).
Case No. 4A_332/2019 (Supreme Court) | Order of 13 November 2019, on appeal against O2018_009 (FPC) | Decision of 27 May 2019 | ‘Patentnichtigkeit Fulvestrant’
A quick recap: Actavis had challenged validity of AZ’s Swiss part of EP 2 266 573 back in 2015, and the FPC had indeed held in 2017 that EP 573 was invalid for lack of inventive step; see this Blog here.
Case No. O2018_003 | Decision of 15 October 2019 | “Patentnichtigkeit; Pemetrexed”
The patent in suit is Lilly‘s EP 1 313 508 B1; see the EPO Register and Swissreg for further details.
Plausibility is a big deal nowadays in almost every high stake patent case:
Does the application as filed in view of the common general knowledge at the filing date make it plausible that the invention really works?
Case No. S2019_007 | Decision of 1 October 2019
The patent in suit is CH/EP 1 173 181 H1, after partial surrender of EP 1 173 181 B3 which itself came out of central limitation proceedings concerning EP 1 173 181 B1 before the EPO; see EPO Register and Swissreg for further information.
As discussed a while ago on this Blog here, the settlement discussion at the occasion of a main hearing is non-public at the FPC.