Everybody can sue everybody for everything (or at least try to do so)

Case No. O2014_005 ¦ Decision of 05 March 2014 ¦ “Nichteintreten; fehlende Begründung”


An unfortunate plaintiff: Yet two further unsuccessful attempts to make a case pending, in addition to O2012_012. A first writ was held querulous and thus returned to sender. A second writ did not comply with minimal standards, was overly lengthy, side-tracked and invective against authorities. The plaintiff failed to improve this second writ, so the case was finally not considered. Again.


The present matter is a follow-up of O2012_012. At that time, the FPC did not consider the case in view of incomprehensibility of the claim (Art. 132(1) and (2) CPC; Art. 23(1) lit. a PatCA).

The plaintiff tried the case once again and filed a writ on August 22, 2013. But again, the writ was not in conformance with at least a minimum of formal requirements. The plaintiff did not take learnings from the prior case. Consequently, the President of the FPC returned the querulous writ to the plaintiff; Art. 132(3) CPC.

Next, the plaintiff filed yet another writ on November 4, 2013. At least some progress: The President set a deadline for correction / improvements to the writ (Art. 132(1) and (2) CPC), since the majority of the writ did not deal with any patent infringement at all. Moreover, it was invective against authorities.

Ihre vorliegende Eingabe von 97 Seiten befasst sich, wie Sie selbst ausführen, zu wohl 95% mit dem, was Sie als “ungebührliche Benachteiligung der Aargauer-Bestecher-Behörden” bezeichnen […]. Daneben figurieren weitere Themen (u.a. Tennis-Technik, Tennis-Trainings-tubel-Terror-Tyrannen, Drug-Drops mit Nikotin, Betreibungsamt, Psychiatrie, Untermieter, Anästhesie, Schwester), die mit der konkreten Patentverletzungsklage nichts zu tun haben. Ihre Klageschrift erweist sich deshalb als unzulässig weitschweifig. Zudem ist sie, was die wiederholten Verbalinjurien gegenüber Behörden und Behördenmitglieder angeht, offensichtlich ungebührlich.

Moreover, it was explicitly noted that the writ did not provide any reasons and arguments for the alleged infringement; the President explicitly referred to BGE 131 III 70 for guidance with respect to the proper wording of requests for injunctive relief. The plaintiff also desired legal aid according to Art. 117 ff CPC. The President recommended to use the form which is available online.

The plaintiff improved the writ in due time. However, the requests (recited in section 4 of the decision on p. 4 and 5) were formally defective for various reasons — if not tragicomic. On the merits, the plaintiff failed to provide any comprehensible discussion of claim features in relation to the alleged infringement(s), despite the President’s guidance in this respect. Even worse, the request did not identify any allegedly infringing embodiment of the defendant(s). Consequently, it was decided to not consider the case. The request for legal aid was accordingly dismissed as the case was devoid of any chances of success; Art. 117 lit. b CPC.

No(!) costs were charged on the plaintiff this time, but the FPC emphasized that it might simply archive further submissions of this kind, without comments.

By the way, just in case you are interested in the technical issues at stake: The plaintiff had invoked CH 698 211 B1 and EP 1 449 391 B1; see Swissreg and the EPO Register for further information.

Reported by Martin WILMING


Case No. O2014_005 ¦ Decision of 05 March 2014 ¦ “Nichteintreten; fehlende Begründung”

(not identified) ./. (not identified)


  • Infringement

Composition of the Board of Judges:

  • Dr. Dieter BRÄNDLE (President)
  • Lic. iur. Jakob ZELLWEGER (First Court Secretary)

Representative(s) of Plaintiff:

  • none

Representative(s) of Defendant(s):

  • none


Download (PDF, 95KB)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

2 Replies to “Everybody can sue everybody for everything (or at least try to do so)”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.