Obscurity of the claim: Case not considered

Case No. O2012_012 ¦ Decision of 20 February 2012 ¦ “Nichteintreten”

This is a somewhat weird case. The claim was not at all comprehensible. It only became clear that the plaintiff alleged to be a licensee of EP 1 449 391 B1, owned by Zoltan Pal. However, neither the defendant was identified, nor the alleged infringement or any details concerning the license contract. Anyhow, license fees of some hundred million CHF were alleged to be outstanding (creditor or debtor remained obscure). Not even a comprehensible request was presented. Some reference was made to a nullity suit in Germany against EP 1 449 391 B1, allegedly filed by Apple Inc., represented by Bardehle Pagenberg.

The FPC finally did not consider the case, in view of incomprehensibility of the claim (Art. 132 para. 1 and 2 CPC; Art. 23 para. 1 lit. a PatCA).

Anzufügen bleibt, dass es dem Kläger nicht etwa (im Sinne von Art. 69 ZPO) am Vermögen gebricht, sein Anliegen zu Papier zu bringen. Er schreibt gegenteils eloquent – aber er scheint nicht willens, sich an die prozessualen Vorgaben zu halten.

Reported by Martin WILMING

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Case No. O2012_012 ¦ Decision of 20 February 2012 ¦ “Nichteintreten”

(not identified) ./. (not identified)

Subject(s):

  • Patent

Composition of the Board of the FPC:

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

Representative(s) of (not identified plaintiff):

  • (none)

Representative(s) of (not identified defendant):

  • (none)
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

3 Replies to “Obscurity of the claim: Case not considered”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.