Urgency of interim measures without hearing the defendant

Case No. S2012_009 ¦ Order of 12 June 2012 ¦ “Zuständigkeit für summarische Verfahren ausserhalb der exklusiven Zuständigkeit; keine besondere Dringlichkeit”

Hepp Wenger Ryffel AG / Martin WILMING is involved in this case on behalf of the plaintiff. No detailed comments on the merits will be made here. However, two legal aspects of this order may be of general interest:

First, the FPC held that its competency also extends to interim measures to be taken in cases of concurrent competency with cantonal courts (Art. 26(2) of the Federal Act on Invention Patents).

Second, the FPC expanded on the urgency of the case. If interim measures are requested without hearing the defendant (according to Art. 265 CPC), such request shall be made within one or two weeks after the plaintiff has taken note of the threat to be prevented. Seven weeks were found indicative of no outstanding urgency:

Hätte die Klägerin die Anordnung der Massnahme für so dringlich gehalten, dass keine Zeit für eine Anhörung des Beklagten bleibe, dann hätte sie das Massnahmebegehren auch umgehend – jedenfalls innert ein oder zwei Wochen – stellen müssen. Hat die [Klägerin] damit aber sieben Wochen zugewartet, dann ist sie offenbar selbst nicht von einer besonders dringlichen Angelegenheit ausgegangen, und deshalb ist es ihr nun verwehrt, genau diese zu behaupten.

The defendant was given an opportunity to make representations, in accordance with Art. 253 CPC.

Reported by Martin WILMING

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Case No. S2012_009 ¦ Order of 12 June 2012 ¦ “Zuständigkeit für summarische Verfahren ausserhalb der exklusiven Zuständigkeit; keine besondere Dringlichkeit”

(not identified) ./. (not identified)

Subject(s):

  • Patent / Utility model (Interim measures)

Composition of the Board of the FPC:

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

Representative(s) of Plaintiff:

Representative(s) of Defendant:

  • (not identified)
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

3 Replies to “Urgency of interim measures without hearing the defendant”

  1. At a recent VESPA seminar, it was outlined by Mr. Tobias BREMI (Second Ordinary Judge of the FPC) that this decision is not to be interpreted in a way as to set an absolute deadline of two weeks for the plaintiff to take action in such cases. Rather, it needs to be credibly shown why the plaintiff could not have acted earlier. If it can be established that such matter was handled with outstanding diligence, interim measures might well be granted without hearing the defendant even after longer terms than one or two weeks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.