Administrative Board of Judges for the term of 2018-2023

As previously reported on this Blog here and here, the Federal Assembly had elected Mark Schweizer as new President and re-elected Tobias Bremi as second permanent judge.

Frank Schnyder has also been re-elected as Vice President at the November 15, 2017 plenary assembly of the FPC.

Thus, the Administrative Board of Judges for the term of office of 2018-2023 is:

President Mark Schweizer
Vice-President Frank Schnyder
Second permanent judge Tobias Bremi

Reported by Martin WILMING

OFFICIAL COMMUNICATION

Download (PDF, 8KB)

BE ON THE KNOW

Enter your name and email address below to get notified of new posts by email.

Three judges with a background in chemistry elected

As noted earlier on this Blog here, elections of the additional judges with a background in chemistry by the Federal Assembly took place earlier today. Unsurprisingly, all judges proposed by the Judicial Commission have been elected.

Congratulations to Michael Kaufmann, Frank Schager and Diego Vergani, and all the best of luck in handling of their cases!

Reported by Martin WILMING

THE SDA COMMUNICATION

Download (PDF, 37KB)

BE ON THE KNOW

Enter your name and email address below to get notified of new posts by email.

Three additional chemists proposed for election as judges

A report of the Judicial Commission on the preparatory work for the election of three additional non-permanent judges with a background in chemistry has been published yesterday.

The following candidates are proposed for election:

  1. KAUFMANN Michael
  2. SCHAGER Frank
  3. VERGANI Diego

Election by the Federal Assembly is scheduled for 13 December 2017.

Reported by Martin WILMING

THE JUDICIAL COMMISSION’S REPORT

Download (PDF, 104KB)

BE ON THE KNOW

Enter your name and email address below to get notified of new posts by email.

states area phone code

Update on forthcoming organisational changes at the FPC

I have reported a few months ago on this Blog here about the plans to amend the Patent Court Act (PatCA) to reflect some learnings from the first years of practice of the FPC. The Swiss Parliament has published today the draft amendment and the accompanying report of the Committee for Legal Affairs of the National Council on its website.

According to the report, the Federal Office of Justice had some concerns to allow the second ordinary judge with technical background to carry out some tasks that are traditionally reserved to fully qualified legal practitioners. Other stakeholders apparently unanimously welcomed the proposed changes. And so does the Committee for Legal Affairs of the National Council. The required qualification of the second ordinary judge can well be safeguarded when she/he is being put to the acid test by the Judicial Commission in preparation of the election.

However, the fly in the ointment is that the proposed possibility to delegate certain case management tasks to the court clerks likely is off the table. Delegation to members of the court that had not been elected was apparently considered a bit too far-reaching.

Now, the Swiss Federal Council is invited to give comments, if any. The Committee for Legal Affairs of the National Council requests that the draft amendment be adopted as-is.

UPDATE Nov 9, 2107:

The Federal Council agreed with the proposed amendments on Nov 8. It is now on the Federal Assembly to enact the changes.

UPDATE Nov 15, 2017:

The organisation changes will most likely not be effective as of Jan 1, 2018, i.e. when the presidency of Mark Schweizer begins. The National Council will deal with the matter only on Nov 28, and it is not even on the agenda of the Council of States for the winter session.

UPDATE Nov 29, 2017:

The National Council voted 183:0 in favour of the proposed amendments.

UPDATE Jan 25, 2018:

On Jan 16, 2018 the States Council’s commission for legal matters recommended the proposed amendments to be approved.

UPDATE Feb 28, 2018:

On Feb 28, 2018 the Council of State has approved the proposed amendments.

Reported by Martin WILMING

Header image kindly provided by «Parlamentsdienste 3003 Bern»

DRAFT AMENDMENT

Download (PDF, 87KB)

REPORT

Download (PDF, 125KB)

BE ON THE KNOW

Enter your name and email address below to get notified of new posts by email.

Time is of the essence

I have reported earlier on this Blog here about the time limits and possible  extensions that parties should expect in proceedings at the FPC, subject to exceptions as set forth in Art. 7 of the Guidelines on Proceedings.

This list has now been officially published on the FPC’s website (see link at the bottom of the page).

Reported by Martin WILMING

CHART OF TIME LIMITS

Download (PDF, 74KB)

BE ON THE KNOW

Enter your name and email address below to get notified of new posts by email.

Ethical Coffee Company ./. Nestlé et al.

ECC’s complaint against Nestlé et al. on the basis of CH 701 971 B1 had not been successful; see this Blog here for details on the first instance judgment of the FPC and the Supreme Court decision here.

The claim at stake inter alia required that

[…] said cage (5) is arranged in such a way as to deform, at least partially, any capsule (1), made of a material that can be deformed upon contact with hot water, which is placed in the cage (5) so that the capsule (1) is retained in the cage (5) following its contact with hot water.

An interesting aspect in this case was the meaning of the term ‘any capsule.’ The FPC held that the attacked embodiments evidently did not retain toute capsule’ / ‘any capsule’. The Supreme Court likewise held that there is apparently no specific meaning of the term ‘any capsule’ in the specific technology, and that the literal meaning was perfectly clear. Since it had been beyond dispute that at least some capsules were not retained, the feature was held to be not fulfilled.

The Regional Court Dusseldorf now came to a different conclusion in its assessment of the parallel EP 2 312 978 B1; see 4b O 9/16. Note that the Swiss judgments had been brought to the attention of the Dusseldorf court; see ¶75. The Dusseldorf court holds that such an interpretation would essentially make the claim meaningless. The skilled person would not understand the claim in this way, in particular since none of the embodiments shown in the patent would be covered by that definition.

Der Fachmann erkennt, dass der Begriff nicht in dem Sinne zu verstehen sein kann, dass damit 100 % aller Kapseln gemeint sind, mit denen in der betreffenden Vorrichtung ein Getränk zubereitet werden kann. […]  Ausreichend ist […], dass der Käfig in Bezug auf eine vorgegebene Kapselform und -größe so ausgestaltet ist, dass er diese Kapseln […] zumindest teilweise verformen und festhalten kann. Bei den Kapseln der vorgegebenen Größe und Form, auf die die Abmessungen des Käfigs patentgemäß abgestimmt werden, handelt es sich um ‘jede Kapsel’ […].

Bei einem anderslautenden Verständnis, wie es das Schweizer Bundesgericht offenbar seiner Auslegung zugrunde legt […] und wonach ‘jede Kapsel’ im Sinne von 100 % aller Kapseln, mit denen in der Vorrichtung ein Getränk zubereitet werden kann, zu verstehen ist, liefe der Patentanspruch zudem im Wesentlichen leer. […]  In seinem Bestreben, dem Patent einen sinnvollen Gehalt zu entnehmen, wird der Fachmann daher nicht auf die beschriebene Sichtweise zurückgreifen.  Überdies würde das dargestellte Verständnis dazu führen, dass keines der Ausführungsbeispiele mehr vom Gegenstand des Patents erfasst wäre. […] Eine Auslegung des Patentanspruchs, die zur Folge hätte, dass keines der in der Patentschrift geschilderten Ausführungsbeispiele vom Gegenstand des Patents erfasst würde, kommt allerdings nur dann in Betracht, wenn andere Auslegungsmöglichkeiten, die zumindest zur Einbeziehung eines Teils der Ausführungsbeispiele führen, zwingend ausscheiden oder wenn sich aus dem Patentanspruch hinreichend deutliche Anhaltspunkte dafür entnehmen lassen, dass tatsächlich etwas beansprucht wird, das so weitgehend von der Beschreibung abweicht […]. Angesichts des bereits dargestellten widerspruchsfreien und sinnvollen Verständnisses des Merkmals, das dem Fachmann vorliegend zur Verfügung steht, wird er auf eben jenes zurückgreifen.

It is always interesting to see how the various courts address the same question differently. In this case, the Swiss courts apparently took a rather strict approach with a strong focus on the wording of the claim, while the Regional Court Dusseldorf took a more liberal approach of claim construction.

The floor is yours for comments …

Reported by Martin WILMING

THE LG D’DORF DECISION 

Download (PDF, 204KB)

THE PATENT IN SUIT

Download (PDF, 235KB)

BE ON THE KNOW

Enter your name and email address below to get notified of new posts by email.

Judges elected!

As noted earlier on this Blog here, elections of judges by the Federal Assembly took place today.

Judges elected!

Unsurprisingly, all judges proposed by the Judicial Commission have been elected for the new term 2018-2023:

The 2nd ordinary judge:

BREMI Tobias; first elected 16 June 2010, re-elected now with 207/218 votes

Re-elected non-permanent judges with a background in technology:

  1. CLERC Natalia, first elected 16 June 2010; re-elected now with 199/207 votes
  2. DUX Roland, first elected 28 September 2011; re-elected now with 197/207 votes
  3. GERVASIO Giovanni, first elected 16 June 2010; re-elected now with 199/207 votes
  4. HERREN Barbara, first elected 28 September 2011; re-elected now with 199/207 votes
  5. KÖPF Alfred; first elected 16 June 2010,  re-elected now with 197/207 votes
  6. MÜLLER Christoph; first elected 16 June 2010, re-elected now with 197/207 votes
  7. MÜLLER Markus A.; first elected 16 June 2010, re-elected now with 197/207 votes
  8. RIGLING Peter D.; first elected 16 June 2010, re-elected now with 196/207 votes
  9. ROLAND André; first elected 16 June 2010, re-elected now with 196/207 votes
  10. ROSHARDT Werner; first elected 16 June 2010, re-elected now with 196/207 votes
  11. RÜEDI Regula; first elected 28 September 2011, re-elected now with 199/207 votes
  12. RÜFENACHT Philipp; first elected 16 June 2010, re-elected now with 197/207 votes
  13. SAAM Christophe; first elected 16 June 2010, re-elected now with 196/207 votes
  14. SCHÖLLHORN SAVARY Andreas; first elected 17 June 2015, re-elected now with 197/207 votes
  15. SCHNYDER Frank; first elected 16 June 2010, re-elected now with 196/207 votes
  16. SPERRLE Martin; first elected 17 June 2015, re-elected now with 196/207 votes
  17. SPILLMANN Hannes; first elected 17 June 2015, re-elected now with 196/207 votes
  18. STOCKER Kurt; first elected 16 June 2010, re-elected now with 197/207 votes
  19. SUTTER Kurt; first elected 16 June 2010, re-elected now with 197/207 votes
  20. VOGEL Daniel; first elected 16 June 2010, re-elected now with 197/207 votes
  21. von BALLMOOS Prisca; first elected 28 September 2011, re-elected now with 196/207 votes
  22. WERNER André; first elected 16 June 2010, re-elected now with 197/207 votes
  23. ZARDI Marco; first elected 16 June 2010, re-elected now with 197/207 votes

Re-elected non-permanent judges with a background in law (all elected 16 June 2010 for the first time):

  1. ALDER Daniel; re-elected now with 196/207 votes
  2. DUCOR Philippe; re-elected now with 197/207 votes
  3. GASSER Christoph; re-elected now with 197/207 votes
  4. HILTI Christian; re-elected now with 197/207 votes
  5. HOLZER Simon; re-elected now with 197/207 votes
  6. KRAUS Daniel; re-elected now with 197/207 votes
  7. LEGLER Thomas; re-elected now with 197/207 votes
  8. RENTSCH Rudolf A.; re-elected now with 197/207 votes
  9. SCHLOSSER Ralph; re-elected now with 197/207 votes
  10. WILLI Christoph; re-elected now with 197/207 votes

Five judges were elected for the first time (1-3 with a background in law, 4-5 with a background in technology):

  1. DORIGO SLONGO Lara; elected now with 208/211 votes
  2. HESS Andri; elected now with 209/211 votes
  3. KOHLER Stefan; elected now with 198/211 votes
  4. PARRINI Lorenzo; elected now with 208/211 votes
  5. STÖRZBACH Michael Andreas; elected now with 210/211 votes

Congratulations to all elected judges, and all the best of luck in handling of their cases!

What remains is the election of two further non-permanent judges with a background in chemistry; see this Blog here. Stay tuned.

Reported by Martin WILMING

THE PROVISIONAL OFFICIAL BULLETIN

Download (PDF, 57KB)

BE ON THE KNOW

Enter your name and email address below to get notified of new posts by email.

The Judicial Commission’s complete proposal for election of judges

The Judicial Commission has published a report on its preparatory work for the election of judges for the FPC yesterday. Elections are scheduled for 27 September 2017. The following 34 judges are available and recommended by the Judicial Commission for re-election:

  • BREMI Tobias, 2nd ordinary judge, elected 16 June 2010

Non-permanent judges with a background in technology:

  1. CLERC Natalia, elected 16 June 2010
  2. DUX Roland, elected 28 September 2011
  3. GERVASIO Giovanni, elected 16 June 2010
  4. HERREN Barbara, elected 28 September 2011
  5. KÖPF Alfred, elected 16 June 2010
  6. MÜLLER Christoph, elected 16 June 2010
  7. MÜLLER Markus A., elected 16 June 2010
  8. RIGLING Peter D., elected 16 June 2010
  9. ROLAND André, elected 16 June 2010
  10. ROSHARDT Werner, elected 16 June 2010
  11. RÜEDI Regula, elected 28 September 2011
  12. RÜFENACHT Philipp, elected 16 June 2010
  13. SAAM Christophe, elected 16 June 2010
  14. SCHÖLLHORN SAVARY Andreas, elected 17 June 2015
  15. SCHNYDER Frank, elected 16 June 2010
  16. SPERRLE Martin, elected 17 June 2015
  17. SPILLMANN Hannes, elected 17 June 2015
  18. STOCKER Kurt, elected 16 June 2010
  19. SUTTER Kurt, elected 16 June 2010
  20. VOGEL Daniel, elected 16 June 2010
  21. von BALLMOOS Prisca, elected 28 September 2011
  22. WERNER André, elected 16 June 2010
  23. ZARDI Marco, elected 16 June 2010

Four technical judges are not available for re-election, i.e.

  • Timothy HOLMAN
  • Emanuel JELSCH
  • Hanny KJELLSA-BERGER
  • Herbert LAEDERACH

The following non-permanent judges with a background in law are recommended for re-election (all elected 16 June 2010 for the first time):

  1. ALDER Daniel
  2. DUCOR Philippe
  3. GASSER Christoph
  4. HILTI Christian
  5. HOLZER Simon
  6. KRAUS Daniel
  7. LEGLER Thomas
  8. RENTSCH Rudolf A.
  9. SCHLOSSER Ralph
  10. WILLI Christoph

Only Mark SCHWEIZER is missing on this list of non-permanent judges with a background in law: He is president-elect of the Federal Patent Court; see this Blog here.

Thus, five positions of non-permanent judges (one in law and four in technology) had to be staffed anyway. But the Judicial Commission now proposes for election three non-permanent judges with a background in law, two with a background in technology (see this Blog here) and is seeking two additional non-permanent judges with a background in chemistry to be elected at a later stage (see this Blog here). The pool of judges will thus get bigger. Why is that?

Well, the number of non-permanent judges is not fixed by law. Art. 8(2) PatCA only requires the following:

The Federal Patent Court is composed of two permanent judges and a sufficient number of non-permanent judges. The majority of non-permanent judges must possess technical training.

The Judicial Commission aims to make sure that the FPC has sufficient personnel to staff its benches of judges. Mark SCHWEIZER will need to step back for reasons of potential conflicts of interests for some time anyway, and two of the three proposed non-permanent judges with a background in law are working for law firms which are currently involved in a lot of pending cases before the FPC, either. Proposing three non-permanent judges with a background in law is thus to safeguard a ‘sufficient number of non-permanent judges’.

Reported by Martin WILMING

THE JUDICIAL COMMISSION’S REPORT

Download (PDF, 107KB)

BE ON THE KNOW

Enter your name and email address below to get notified of new posts by email.

Proposed non-permanent judges

As noted earlier on this Blog here, the Judicial Committee has recently been seeking

  • one non-permanent judge with a background in law; and
  • four non-permanent judges with a background in chemistry or mechanical engineering.

A press release has been published by the Judicial Committee yesterday, setting out the proposal to the parliament for election on 27 September 2017.

Candidates for the position(s) as non-permanent judge(s) with a background in law are:

It remains to be seen whether all three candidates will be elected, or just one of them according to the initial job posting.

As per today, the candidates for the positions as non-permanent judges with a background in technology are:

The Judicial Committee is currently still seeking two further non-permanent judges with a background in chemistry; see this Blog here.

Reported by Martin WILMING

PRESS RELEASE

Download (PDF, 69KB)

BE ON THE KNOW

Enter your name and email address below to get notified of new posts by email.

Chemists wanted!

Hurry up, you patent attorneys with a background in chemistry out there:

The Judicial Committee of the Swiss Federal Assembly is recruiting a further two non-permanent judges with a technical background in chemistry for the FPC. Applications are to be submitted by no later than September 25, 2017.

Please revert to the job ad (online) (DE/FR/IT) or below (DE) for further information.

ZWEI NEBENAMTLICHE RICHTER/INNEN MIT CHEMIE-AUSBILDUNG AM BUNDESPATENTGERICHT

Das Bundespatentgericht ist das Spezialgericht des Bundes für Streitigkeiten über Patente. Es hat seinen Sitz in St. Gallen. Es setzt sich aus Richterinnen und Richtern mit juristischer sowie Richterinnen und Richtern mit technischer Ausbildung zusammen.

Im Hinblick auf die Gesamterneuerung des Bundespatentgerichtes schreibt die Gerichtskommission der Vereinigten Bundesversammlung zwei Stellen von nebenamtlichen Richterinnen beziehungsweise Richtern mit Chemie-Ausbildung aus.

Sie verfügen über ein abgeschlossenes Hochschulstudium in Chemie. Sie weisen eine mehrjährige Berufserfahrung als Patentanwältin beziehungsweise Patentanwalt auf, namentlich im Pharma-Bereich. Sie werden vom Gericht fallweise beigezogen und sind deshalb zeitlich flexibel.

Aufgrund der spezifischen Aufgaben des Gerichts sind sehr gute Deutsch-, Französisch- und Englischkenntnisse in Wort und Schrift Voraussetzung.

Bewerberinnen und Bewerber müssen die Schweizer Staatsbürgerschaft innehaben.

Gemäss Artikel 9 Absatz 4 des Patentgerichtsgesetzes können bei der Vorbereitung der Wahl das Eidgenössische Institut für Geistiges Eigentum sowie die im Patentwesen tätigen Fachorganisationen und interessierten Kreise angehört werden.

Die Vereinigte Bundesversammlung wird die Wahl in der Wintersession 2017 vornehmen.

Amtsantritt: 1. Januar 2018.

Informationen zum Bundespatentgericht finden Sie im Internet unter http://www.patentgericht.ch/

Ihre Bewerbung mit Lebenslauf, Kopien von Diplomen und Arbeitszeugnissen, Angabe von Referenzpersonen (darunter mindestens zwei berufliche Referenzen), Straf- und Betreibungsregisterauszug sowie Passfoto richten Sie bitte bis zum 25. September 2017 an die Gerichtskommission der Vereinigten Bundesversammlung.

Adresse: Sekretariat der Gerichtskommission, Parlamentsgebäude, 3003 Bern.

Auskünfte:
Ständerat Roland Eberle, Präsident der Gerichtskommission, Tel.: 079 352 27 63
Anne Dieu, Sekretärin der Gerichtskommission, Tel.: 058 322 94 26

Reported by Martin WILMING

Editorial: Thou shalt not steal

UPDATE Aug 12, 2017:

The post has been deleted within less than 24h. Thank you, Google.

I am following a lot of Blogs, to stay informed and as a source of inspiration for own work. It is very rare that I am getting miffed when glancing through other Blogs. But Pharma IP Circle recently drove me nuts. A comparison with my original text reveals that their post on Sevelamer of July 18 is blatant plagiarism.

Plagiarism (Pharma IP Circle)

I stick to my copyright notice:

Just some thoughts on how I would appreciate this Blog to be used: Read it (please), think it through (please!), use it for your own cases (but not against me …) and don’t blame me for any misunderstanding, neither mine nor yours. Citing and referring to this Blog is perfectly fine, but don’t steal. Easy, isn’t it?

Now, what to do when even such simple rules are just ignored, comments on the Blog are not released for publication and the author does not react on your inquiries?

My comment on Google+

Be prepared to file a complaint with Google as a last resort.

Reported by Martin WILMING

COMPARISON OF TEXTS

Download (PDF, 387KB)

BE ON THE KNOW

Enter your name and email address below to get notified of new posts by email.

How the date of a hearing is fixed

Many courts just issue summons to a hearing at a date of their choice. If this date does not suit you, bad luck. It’s sink or swim. And if sinking is no option, you should really have very good reason to request postponement.

But there is also a Swiss consensus-oriented way to fix a date for the hearing. It goes like this:

When time is ripe for the hearing, the FPC proposes five dates. Actually, you are invited to fill out a Doodle® scheduling request. (No, you don’t see which dates have already been selected by the other party.) Both parties are required to select at least three dates, and preferences can be indicated. This way, there will necessarily be at least one common denominator.

And if one doesn’t accept at least three dates? There still can be a lucky match. But don’t be tempted to decline dates just for convenience. If you do not accept at least three of the proposed dates and there is a mismatch for this reason, this could actually backfire: The President will then fix the date of the hearing in favor of the party who had accepted more dates.

Reported by Martin WILMING

BE ON THE KNOW

Enter your name and email address below to get notified of new posts by email.