Don’t miss VESPA‘s evening seminar about recent case law of the FPC on Thursday, 14 October 2021 in Zurich (17:15 hrs CET); see the detailed program below. → Read more ...
The annual evening seminar about case-law of the FPC is back, in mixed mode!
Please welcome with me: The mind willing to understand, not desirous of misunderstanding
Case No. O2020_001 | Decision of 9 June 2021
As mentioned earlier on this Blog here and here, Becton, Dickinson and Company had sued Ypsomed AG for infringement of EP 2 825 227 B1; see EPO Register and Swissreg for further bibliographic information. → Read more ...
PatA revision: The dust is settling (slowly)
The envisaged changes to the Swiss PatA have caused a very intense discussion amongst stakeholders. Opinions could hardly have been more different, ranging from outright damnation of examination on the merits («bureaucratic monster») to wholehearted welcome («overdue»). → Read more ...
Will the Enlarged Board of Appeal descend into the rabbit hole of ‘plausibility’?
Case No. T 116/18 – 3.3.02 (EPO) | Hearing of 22 July 2021
Board of Appeal 3.3.02 envisages to refer questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal with respect to one of the most fancy issues in patent matters in recent times, i.e. → Read more ...
What the heck is a funnel?!
Case No. O2020_003 | Hearing of 7 July 2021
Hubert Hergeth has sued Uster Technologies AG and Maschinenfabrik Rieter AG for infringement of CH 698 484; see Swissreg for further bibliographic information. → Read more ...
Transparency of how panels of judges are composed: Room for improvement
The Control Committees (CC; ‘Geschäftsprüfungskommissionen’, GPK in German) of both the Council of States and the National Council recommend that the Federal Courts improve transparency about the formation of the panels that are handling the individual cases; see the press release of 24 June 2021 and the report of the CC and the underlying report of the Parliamentary Control of the Administration below. → Read more ...
A hard-to-digest ‘Gugelhupf’
Case No. O2019_012 | Hearing of 1 July 2021
The patent at stake is EP 3 027 362 B1 which is jointly owned by C&E Fein GmbH and Robert Bosch GmbH; see the EPO Register and Swissreg for further information. → Read more ...
When the EPO’s BoA decision is not persuasive authority
Case No. O2019_005 | Decision of 3 May 2021 | ‘Schnittschutzstreifen’
As reported earlier on this Blog here and here, Sanipat GmbH and Hafner AG have been litigating over certain sealing strips for e.g. → Read more ...
Deriving meaning from a claim: Narrower, broader … or contrary to the wording?
Case No. O2020_001 | Hearing of 4 June 2021
As mentioned earlier on this Blog here, Becton, Dickinson and Company has sued Ypsomed AG for infringement of EP 2 825 227 B1; see EPO Register and Swissreg for further bibliographic information. → Read more ...
Oh Yeah! Patent troll unveiled
Case No. O2020_004 | Order of 3 March 2021
We recently reported about this order already on this Blog here. The order is heavily anonymized, and close to nothing is mentioned about the technical subject matter of the patent in suit. → Read more ...
Book Launch Webinar: The Protection of Intellectual Property Rights Under International Investment Law
I recently came across the monograph ‘The Protection of Intellectual Property Rights Under International Investment Law‘, authored by Simon Klopschinski, Christopher Gibson and Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan. → Read more ...
No need to open books in order to prevent a security for party compensation
Case No. O2020_004 | Order of 3 March 2021 | ‘Security for party compensation’
The defendant in this infringement case had requested that the plaintiff be ordered to provide a security for its party compensation in case of failure of plaintiff’s complaint. → Read more ...