Case Law of the Swiss Federal Patent Court
Case No. O2020_006 | Order of 16 September 2020 | ‘IML Verfahren mit elektrostatischer Haftung’
Rotho Kunststoff had lodged invalidation proceedings in April 2020 against Keter Plastic with respect to EP(CH) 2 121 271 B1; see the European Register and Swissreg for further bibliographic information.
Case No. O2020_013 | Decision of 14 September 2020 | ‘Einschlagbarer Hüftgelenkprothesengrundkörper; Rückweisung’
This case has been remitted by the Supreme Court only for a decision on the apportionment of costs.
I am just thinking out loud here, and it may well be that I am overlooking something or should have slept it over once more.
Case No. O2019_001 | Hearing of 16 September 2020
As mentioned earlier on this Blog here, Werner & Mertz (well known e.g.
Case No. O2019_004 | Hearing of 30 June 2020
We first reported here that a blockchain infringement case might be pending at the FPC with some involvement of MLL.
Case No. S2020_001 | Decision of 25 August 2020 | ‘Enforcement request’
We have reported about this matter on this Blog already here and here.
VESPA’s annual evening seminar about case-law of the FPC had been postponed in March, due to the Covid-19 pandemic. It finally takes place today, with a limited number of attendees on premise, and a Zoom live stream in parallel.
Case No. O2018_004 | Hearing of 3 September 2020
Some background of the subject-matter at stake can be found on this Blog here.
Case No. 4A_583/2019 (Supreme Court) | Decision of 19 August 2020 on appeal against O2016_012 (FPC) | Decision of 28 October 2019 | ‘Einschlagbarer Hüftgelenkprothesengrundkörper’
I have reported about the first instance decision in this matter on this Blog here.
It’s news from yesteryear, but still worth mentioning. By accident, I came across 3M’s press release of 11 November 2019, indicating that 3M and sia Abrasives Industries have settled various patent disputes, i.e.
Case No. 4A_77/2020 (Supreme Court) | Decision of 17 June 2020 » on appeal against O2019_008 (FPC) | Decision of 17 December 2019 » | ‘Flow sensor II’
This is the second time that the Supreme Court had to deal with the ‘flow sensor’ litigation between Hamilton Medical and imtmedical.
Case No. 4A_609/2019 (Supreme Court) | Decision of 16 July 2020 » on appeal against O2017_009 (FPC) | Decision of 1 November 2019 »
In first instance proceedings, the FPC held that some of imtmedical’s Bellavista ventilation machines with the ‘Animated Lung‘ feature infringe on Hamilton Medical’s EP 1 984 805 B1 »; see EPO Register and Swissreg for further bibliographic information.