On appeal against the decision of an ED to refuse an Euro-PCT application of Nestec SA for reasons of an alleged ‘internal double patenting’ issue, i.e.
Case No. O2016_009 ¦ Decision of 18 December 2018 ¦ ‘Durchflussmessfühler’
Please find some background information about the subject-matter at stake on this Blog here, and a report about the main hearing of 29 October 2018 on this Blog here.
Case No. O2018_018 ¦ Order (excerpt) of 4 January 2019 ¦ ‘Klageüberfall’
The hn highlights in no uncertain terms the risk associated with maintaining patents of doubtful validity in Switzerland: Even in case of a nullity action out of the blue, and even if the patent is then withdrawn immediately, the patentee / defendant still has to bear the procedural costs.
I stumbled upon an open letter of Public Eye to Alain Berset, head of the Federal Department of Home Affairs. Public Eye pushes for a
[…] public non-commercial use (compulsory) licence on patents related to the breast cancer medicine pertuzumab sold by Roche under the brand name Perjeta®.
Case No. 4A_489/2018 (Supreme Court) | Decision of 3 January 2019
The Swiss trademark application no. 63209/2015 had been rejected by the IPI already back in December 2016.
Case No. B-1176/2017 (FAC) | Decision of 10 January 2019
Apple surely is one of the most iconic brands. The look and feel of Apple is still pretty unique, in my perception.
Case No. O2017_026 ¦ Order of 11 September 2018
I had reported about the ownership dispute in summary proceedings between between David Bensoussan and Rock dental AG on this Blog here.
Case No. S2018_006 | Hearing of 17 January 2019
The plaintiff CSEM is the patentee of EP 1 422 436 B1; see Swissreg and the EPO register for further bibliographic details.
Don’t miss VESPA‘s annual evening seminar about recent case law of the FPC on Thursday, March 28 in Zurich; see the program below.
Case No. B-4729/2018 (FAC) | Decision of 12 December 2018
Richemont’s trademark application 58809/2016, a stylised fish, for watches etc. in class 14 had been rejected.
Case No. 4A_415/2018 (Supreme Court) ¦ Decision of 7 December 2018, on appeal against O2017_016 (FPC) ¦ Decision of 12 June 2018
The setup of this case is pretty simple:
Salmon Pharma as the defendant in SPC infringement proceedings neither disputed validity of the basic patent EP 0 716 606 B1 of Genzyme Corporation, nor that the subject-matter of the SPC C00716606/01 is actually covered by the basic patent or that the attacked embodiment (sevelamer carbonate) is covered by the SPC.
Case No. 4A_234/2018 ¦ Decision of 28 November 2018 (Supreme Court) on appeal against HG 13 20 ¦ Decision of 08 February 2018 (Commercial Court Berne, unpublished)
To put this case in context, it is helpful to know that WILD Heerbrugg was a Swiss company established in 1921 that produced high quality optical instruments; see the Virtual Archive of WILD Heerbrugg for further information.