Enforcement of an injunction: The risk of hyperlinks

Reading time: 6 minutes

Case No. S2021_009 | Summary Judgment of 14 March 2022 | ‘Enforcement’

C&E Fein and Bosch have been litigating with Coram for quite a while, first in summary proceedings (no PI was imposed on Coram; see this Blog here) and subsequently in main proceedings (see this Blog here). The judgment in main proceedings held that EP 362 (see the EPO Register and Swissreg for further information; verbally substantially limited inter partes) was valid and infringed by Coram’s tools with connectors referred to as ‘Quick-Fit’ or ‘Q-Fit’.

Coram appealed, but the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with judgment of 11 February 2022 (published only yesterday, 6 April 2022). Note that the appeal had no suspensive effect.

While the appeal was still pending, the parties locked jaws again. C&E and Bosch asserted that Coram did not comply with the court order.

Here is what happened:

The FPC handed down its judgment in main proceedings on 1 September 2021. The operative part of the judgment inter alia prohibits Coram to contribute to the offering of the saw blades with infringing ‘Quick-Fit’ connectors:

I take from the judgment that Coram immediately complied with the operative part of the judgment in most parts. Coram does not sell directly to end users, but only to a single distributor, Revotool. Coram immediately stopped its sales to Revotool, recalled infringing items from Revotool and urged Revotool to recall items from downstream distributors.

However, Coram’s website apparently remained unchanged until about 19 October 2022; the landing page still showcased tools with Q-Fit connectors e.g. on 16 September 2021. The tricky thing is that there is a hyperlink («Wo kaufen? […] Händlernetzwerk») at the bottom of the page, that provides a list of all points of sales in Switzerland where Coram products (not all of which are covered by the judgment) can be purchased by end users. The judgment holds that this is covered by the prohibition of contributing to offers. The legal term «Mitwirken» is broad, but clear:

Even though no actual sale of infringing goods has occured, the judgment holds that Coram had an increased duty of care in view of the judgment, and that a hyperlink to webpages where infringing goods are still offered (even though they have apparently not been sold anymore via these webpages!) is not excusable under the circumstances.

After a warning letter, Coram put a disclaimer on its website on or after 19 October 2021 (see e.g. here, 30 November 2021):

Das Angebot der Quick-Blätter gilt nicht für die Schweiz. Es werden keine Sägeblätter mit der Quickaufnahme in die Schweiz verkauft.

The judgment holds that this did not resolve the issue, but rather amounts to a somewhat contradictory behavior. The disclaimer indicated non-availability in Switzerland, but some points of sale that were hyperlinked by Coram still offered infringing tools.

Calculation of the administrative fine
you’ve been bad!

The initial threat was an administrative fine of CHF 1’000,– per day. The judgment acknowledges that Coram did not entirely ignore the operative part of the judgment and holds that the violation was only minor («minderschwer»). Further, Coram did not act wilfully, but only negligently. With the disclaimer in place after 19 October 2021, the violation is held to be even less severe. Accordingly, the daily fine was set to CHF 300,– for each day of violation until 19 October 2021, and CHF 100,– for each day thereafter.

Even though the max. fine was reduced by 70% and 90%, respectively, the overall fine still amounts to CHF 16’800,–. The overall bill for Coram is CHF 25’800,–, including a court fee of CHF 4’000,– and a partial refund of plaintiffs’ expenses for legal representation of CHF 5’000,–. That’s quite some money for a negligent hyperlink to some point of sales websites that still showed infringing offers which did not result in a single sale.

Coram’s second generation ‘Quick-Fit’

Here is an example of Coram’s tools with the first generation ‘Quick-Fit’ or ‘Q-Fit’ connectors :

You will readily appreciate the hexagon shape of the connector. Accordingly, there are six driving area regions in the first generation ‘Q-Fit’ connectors — an even number between 4 and 32 in accordance with the verbally limited claim.

Apparently, this fits well into the dodecagon shape of Starlock® fittings of Bosch and C&E Fein:

Starlock® fitting and tool  with dodecagon shape
‘Q-Fit’ (gen. 2)

Interestingly, a heptagon shape apparently is also compatible with the Starlock fitting. Coram’s second generation ‘Q-Fit’ (see e.g. the header image) that has been introduced into the market apparently in due consideration of the injunction has no even number of driving area regions anymore.

A smart move, this quick fix second gen “Q-Fit”, isn’t it?

/MW

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Case No. S2021_009 | Summary Judgment of 14 March 2022 | ‘Enforcement’

(1) C&E Fein GmbH
(2) Robert Bosch GmbH
./.
Coram Tools GmbH

Panel of Judges:

    • Dr. Mark SCHWEIZER
    • Dr. Daniel M. ALDER
    • Dr. Markus A. MÜLLER

Judge-rapporteur:

    • Dr. Daniel M. ALDER

Court Clerk:

    • Susanne ANDERHALDEN

Representative(s) of Plaintiff:

Representative(s) of Defendant:

SUMMARY JUDGMENT / ENFORCEMENT

JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS

PATENT IN SUIT

BE ON THE KNOW

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

Re-shuffling of claims: Scramble gamble

Reading time: 8 minutes

Case No. O2019_012 | Decision of 30 August 2021 | ‘Sägeblätter’

HEADNOTE

Art. 58(1) CPC, Art. 28a PatA; Principle of non ultra petita; limitation of patent claims.

The limitation of patent claims declared for the proceedings («verbal» or «inter partes») has retroactive effect to the date of grant of the patent («ex tunc»).

Fein’s logo

The patent at stake is EP 3 027 362 B1 which is jointly owned by C&E Fein GmbH and Robert Bosch GmbH; see the EPO Register and Swissreg for further information.

For some background information about the subject-matter at stake, please have a look at the comments concerning earlier summary proceedings between the same parties on this Blog here.

The patent in suit
Bosch’s logo

In brief, the invention is about a tool for use with a hand guided machine with an oscillating drive. The attachment device for the tool is a 3D fitting; see e.g. Fein’s various Starlock® tools:

Fein’s Starlock tools
The alleged infringement
Coram’s logo

The plaintiffs asserted that EP 362 (more precisely, verbally limited by a combination of claim 1 with dependent claims 13, 8, 3, 7 and 4, further limited by some  prefererred features in these claims) is infringed by Coram’s saw blades ‘B-Cut’ with ‘Quick Fixture’:

Grab and rotate the tool, to get an idea of
the 3D-fitting


In prior summary proceedings, interim injunctive relief had been denied for lack of novelty over EP 596 831 A1. At that time, the patent in suit had not yet been verbally limited as in the present proceedings; see this Blog here. But now, the judgment holds that the verbally (very) limited claim is valid and infringed.

The most interesting aspects of the judgment, in my view, are the following:

An unintentional mishap: Correction allowed

Plaintiffs had limited EP 362 inter partes with the reply, inter alia by combining claim 1 with features of claim 13. The relevant feature of claim 13 reads as follows (emphasis added):

[…] the attachment device (12) comprises an even number of driving area regions (2, 2a, 2b), preferably 4 or more, preferably 8 or more, and particularly preferably 16 or more, and further preferably 64 or less, preferably 48 or less, and particularly preferably 32 or less, most preferably 24,

Based thereon, the verbally limited claim demanded for «4 or more and 32 or less» driving area regions. Which is okay. But the mandatory feature of an «even number» got lost. The judgment holds that an interpretation of Plaintiffs’ submission in good faith must lead to the conclusion that the «even number» was not meant to be deleted. In particular, Plaintiffs had submitted in the reply that they limited the claim by defining the exact numbers instead of «only» the even number:

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ correction to re-include the «even number» even after closure of the file was admitted.

What is a ‘Rounding’?

The claim as asserted demands for ’roundings’ (Abrundungen) between the driving area regions. Apparently, the parties dissented about whether or not that implied a certain threshold of the radius. Accordingly, the FPC had to construe the term. Towards this end, the judgment first points to the common use of the term in material processing, i.e. to chamfer an edge (eine Kante brechen), with reference to Wiktionary (fn 19 in ¶ 19). However, this does not say anything about the extent of chamfering. And the patent itself? It is silent about the effect of the roundings, which is why the judgment holds that a functional interpretation does not help either. Since the patent does not give any further indication about the extent of the rounding, the judgment holds that the term is essentially non-limiting, both in terms of validity and infringement:

Accordingly, the judgment holds that ’roundings’ has to be interpreted broadly: Depending on the viewing scale, any edge that has been manufactured with conventional manufacturing techniques has a certain rounding.

Can it really be as simple as that (even though it was not a decisive issue of the case)? I do agree that the term has to be interpreted broadly. And I can’t know what had been pleaded, but the purpose of a rounding is pretty clear to me, i.e. to protect against injury and to facilitate insertion into other workpieces (see Wikipedia) — which makes perfectly sense to me in the context at hand. In my view, geometries that are not ‘fit for these purposes’ are not ’roundings’ according to the patent.

Does scrambling of claims have any limits?

The verbally limited claim essentially is a combination of claims 24 + 23 + 15 + 14 + 13 + 12 + 10 + 9 + 6 + 5 + 4 + 1 of the application as filed, or claims 13 + 8 + 7 + 4 + 3 + 1 of the patent as granted. On top of that, eight features in those claims were amended e.g. by way of making optional features mandatory, deleting alternatives, etc.

Defendant had argued that the resulting combination of features was not originally disclosed, i.e. that the amendment was unallowable. The court did not buy into that. Rather, the judgment holds that the resulting subject-matter was necessarily (‘notwendigerweise’) originally disclosed — in my reading, simply because it was in the claims, and even though many choices were made; ¶ 26.

That actually sometimes suprises me: A combination of (even many) claims and scrambling of features within the combined claims is hardly ever challenged in terms of allowability under Art. 123(2) EPC. But why is that? Is such a limitation really so different from the choices from multiple lists, which is only possible to very limited extent according to EPO practice? In the end, it’s all about clear and unambiguous disclosure in the application as filed. Does it make a difference whether the disclosure is in the claims as filed, or in the specification? What if the disclosure would not have been in the claims, but in ‘claim-like clauses’ of same content at the end of the specification; would that have made a difference?

Food for thought: To prevent trouble with the (very) strict approach of the EPO re allowability of amendments under Art. 123(2) EPC, let’s assume a Euro-PCT application based on a PCT application with literally all conceivable permutations covered in thousands of claims, with multiple dependencies. Such PCT applications are definitely out there already. Note that there are no claim fees for PCT applications, and the ‘application as filed’ in the regional phase at the EPO is the PCT application as filed (Guidelines B-VIII, 6). Happy life!(?).

Ex tunc effect of the verbal limitation

This is what the hn is all about. A patentee can partially waive the patent (Art. 24 PatA) with erga omnes effect, or he can verbally limit the patent with inter partes effect in civil proceedings. The judgment holds that the patentee’s right to invoke the patent to a limited extent is based on the principle of party disposition (‘Dispositionsmaxime’); ¶ 58.

However, what is the timely effect of a verbal limitation? The judgment holds that in the absence of an explicit legal basis, the court has to decide in accordance with the rule that it would make as a legislator; Art. 1(2) CC. In the court’s view, it suggests itself to assume the same ex tunc effect for a verbal limitation as is codified for a partial waiver; Art. 28a PatA.

Recall of products from commercial customers

The judgment provides some clarification about how a recall of infringing products from commercial customers is to be dealt with. The judgment holds that the recall shall be accompanied with a mentioning of the patent infringement. However, it is not necessary to offer a refund of the purchase price. The latter would amount to a disproportionate encroachment on the private autonomy of contractual relationships.

Reported by Martin WILMING

The decision has been appealed to the Supreme Court.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Case No. O2019_012 | Decision of 30 August 2021 | ‘Sägeblätter’

(1) C&E Fein GmbH
(2) Robert Bosch GmbH
./.
Coram Tools GmbH

Panel of Judges:

    • Dr. Mark SCHWEIZER
    • Dr. Markus A. MÜLLER
    • Dr. Stefan KOHLER
    • Dr. Philipp RÜFENACHT
    • Dr. Daniel ALDER

Judge-rapporteur:

    • Dr. Markus A. MÜLLER

Court Clerk:

    • Susanne ANDERHALDEN

Representative(s) of Plaintiff:

Representative(s) of Defendant:

DECISION IN FULL

PATENT IN SUIT

BE ON THE KNOW

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

A hard-to-digest ‘Gugelhupf’

Reading time: 6 minutes

Case No. O2019_012 | Hearing of 1 July 2021

Fein’s logo

The patent at stake is EP 3 027 362 B1 which is jointly owned by C&E Fein GmbH and Robert Bosch GmbH; see the EPO Register and Swissreg for further information.

For some background information about the subject-matter at stake, please have a look at the comments concerning earlier summary proceedings between the same parties on this Blog here.

The patent in suit
Bosch’s logo

In brief, the invention is about a tool which is intended to be used with a machine, in particular a hand guided machine. The machine has a rotational drive, e.g. an oscillating drive.

In simple terms, it’s all about a somewhat special attachment device that transfers a torque from the driving device to the machine tool. It’s a 3D fitting; see e.g. Fein’s various Starlock® tools:

Fein’s Starlock tools
The alleged infringement
Coram’s logo

The plaintiffs assert that EP 362 (more precisely, the combination of independent claim 1 with dependent claims 13, 8, 3, 7 and 4) is infringed by Coram’s saw blades ‘B-Cut’ with ‘Quick Fixture’:

Grab and rotate the tool, to get an idea of
how ‘gugelhupfig’ the attachment device is …

A mishap

I understood from the pleadings that a mishap might have occured when the plaintiffs ‘limited’ EP 362 inter partes with the reply, i.e. when inter alia claim 13 was combined with claim 1. The relevant feature of claim 13 reads as follows (emphasis added):

[…] the attachment device (12) comprises an even number of driving area regions (2, 2a, 2b), preferably 4 or more, preferably 8 or more, and particularly preferably 16 or more, and further preferably 64 or less, preferably 48 or less, and particularly preferably 32 or less, most preferably 24,

It appears that claim 1 as limited inter partes now specifies that the attachment device comprises 4 or more and 32 or less driving area regions — but the feature of ‘an even number of driving regions’ got lost. Or has it been intentionally omitted? This is where the parties dissent. Plaintiffs argued that it cannot have been intended to delete the ‘even number’ when interpreting the request in good faith. In particular, the deletion was obviously irrelevant for validity and infringement. On the contrary, defendant argued that the deletion itself had been made intentionally (in mark-up and recited in the reply, maybe to block work-arounds with an odd number of driving area regions), but plaintiffs simply do not want to bear the consequences:

Möglicherweise wollten die Klägerinnen die Konsequenzen der Streichung nicht; aber die Streichung an sich haben sie gewollt.

allegedly unallowable amendments

Some further amendments were discussed re allowability. I will not discuss them all here, but I found one discussion concerning ranges particularly interesting. I understood from the pleadings that plaintiffs have formed ranges from the separate lists of upper and lower limits given in the claims (most likely former dependent claims 4 and/or 7). The case law of the EPO’s Boards of Appeal typically allows for some re-shuffling of limits from interrelated ranges. But this is not necessarily the case when there are only separate lists of lower limits and upper limits; see e.g. T 1919/11 (r. 2.2.2) where a combination of lower and upper limits from separate lists in two consecutive sentences of the specification was held unallowable.

The President asked the defendant whether they would have expected to infringe the respective claim when they exceeded the lowest value from the first list; defendant answered in the affirmative. Likewise, the President asked whether they would have expected to infringe that claim when they stayed below the highest value from the other list; again, defendant answered in the affirmative.

I am not sure where the President’s intervention was heading to. Does it make a difference if such a disclosure is not in the specification (as in T 1919/11) but rather in the claims? I don’t think it should. Allowability of amendments is all about clear and unambiguous disclosure of a (combination of) feature(s) in the application as filed — no matter, where. (Okay, leaving the abstract aside.) Scope of the claims as filed cannot matter. If it did matter, one could also narrow down an initially claimed genus (e.g. metal) to an initially undisclosed species (e.g. copper): Of course one would have expected to infringe a ‘metal claim’ when using copper. But one would not have expected that copper could specifically be claimed out of the blue, and that one would eventually need to invalidate a claim directed to copper.

Oral proceedings in co-pending opposition proceedings are scheduled for 12 October 2021. The claims currently on file with the EPO were held to be not allowable in the preliminary opinion of the OD. But I understand that these claims are not (yet) the ones that are on file in proceedings at the FPC; the final date for submissions in EPO proceedings is 12 August 2021.

At the end of the hearing, the President mentioned that a decision can be expected only after judicial vacations (i.e. after 15 August 2021) but very likely before 12 October 2021.

Reported by Martin WILMING

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Case No. O2019_012 | Hearing of 1 July 2021

(1) C&E Fein GmbH
(2) Robert Bosch GmbH
./.
Coram Tools GmbH

Panel of Judges:

    • Dr. Mark SCHWEIZER
    • Dr. Markus A. MÜLLER
    • Dr. Stefan KOHLER
    • Dr. Philipp RÜFENACHT
    • Dr. Daniel ALDER

Judge-rapporteur:

    • Dr. Markus A. MÜLLER

Court Clerk:

    • Susanne ANDERHALDEN

Representative(s) of Plaintiff:

Representative(s) of Defendant:

    • Dr. Andri HESS (Homburger)
    • Hans Rudolf GACHNANG (Gachnang), assisting in patent matters
    • Dr. Niklaus KRÄNZLIN (Gachnang), assisting in patent matters

ANNOUNCEMENT

PATENT IN SUIT

BE ON THE KNOW

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

The expert opinion of the judge-rapporteur is not the end of the line

Reading time: 8 minutes

Case No. S2018_007 | Decision of 2 May 2019

Fein’s logo

The patent at stake is EP 3 027 362 B1 which is jointly owned by C&E Fein GmbH and Robert Bosch GmbH; see the EPO Register and Swissreg for further information.

We had reported about the main hearing in this matter on this Blog here.

The patent in suit

Bosch’s logo

The invention is about a tool which is intended to be used with a machine tool, in particular a hand guided machine tool. The machine tool has a rotational drive, e.g. an oscillating drive.

In simple terms, it’s all about a somewhat special attachment device that transfers a torque from the driving device to the machine tool. It’s a 3D fitting; see e.g. Fein’s various Starlock® tools:

Fein’s Starlock tools

Bosch has the same attachment system in place in the Professional Multitool series:

Bosch’s GOP 12 V-28 Professional Multitool

Plaintiffs referred to it as ‘Gugelhupf’ or ‘Napfkuchen’. The claim language is a bit more complicated and less culinary, though.


Claim 1 of EP'362

1.1 A tool device (1, 1b) which is suitable for use with a machine tool (22), and in particular suitable for use with a hand guided machine tool, which has a driving device moving around a driving axis, and in particular oscillating around the driving axis,
1.2 and which has an attachment device (12) by means of which it can be fastened to a machine tool (22) in such a manner that the driving axis and a tool axis of rotation (5) are substantially coincident,
1.3 wherein, for receiving a driving force, the attachment device (12) comprises at least two driving area regions (2, 2a, 2b) each having a plurality of surface points (3) and which are spaced from this tool axis of rotation (5),
1.4 characterized in that tangent planes (4) at these surface points (3) are inclined relative to an axial plane (7), which includes the tool axis of rotation (5),
1.5 wherein the tangent planes (4) are inclined relative to a radial plane (6), which extends perpendicular to the tool axis of rotation (5),
1.6 wherein the attachment device (12) comprises a side wall,
1.7 wherein the side wall extends spaced radially from the tool axis of rotation (5),
1.8 wherein the side wall extends between a first, upper boundary plane (8a) and a second, lower boundary plane (8b), and
1.9 wherein the side wall comprises the driving area regions (2, 2a, 2b),
1.10 wherein a substantially hollow conical section is formed in the region of the attachment device by means of the side wall, which section has a cross section with a variable spacing of the side wall to the tool axis of rotation in a plane orthogonal to the tool axis of rotation.


The alleged infringement

Coram’s logo

The plaintiffs asserted that EP’362 (more precisely, the independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-9, 11, 13 and 14) is infringed by Coram’s saw blades ‘B-Cut’ with ‘Quick Fixture’, and requested interim injunctive relief.

And indeed, the attachment device of Coram’s saw blades appears somewhat ‘gugelhupfig’:

But infringement was not the major issue here. Apparently, it had not even been explicitly disputed.

The bone of contention was the validity of EP’362.

The expert opinion was not yet it

What …?!

It was clear from the pleadings at the main hearing that the judge-rapporteur’s expert opinion had held that EP’362 was valid.

Some still say that the expert-opinion of the judge-rapporteur is effectively the end of the line. And, indeed, the handwriting on the wall bodes poorly when the judge-rapporteur does not follow your arguments. But there are exceptions to the rule, and the present case apparently is a prime example.

Novelty / claim construction

The decision holds that EP’362 is invalid.

Even though novelty over DE 2 120 669 has been acknowledged (because the ‘Gugelhupf’ structure in Fig. 5 of DE'669 is not the attachment device of the tool towards the driving means, but rather only an inner part of the tool itself) , the decision holds that claim 1 is not novel over EP 0 596 831 A1:

Fig. 2 of EP’831 (annotations by the FPC to show the sidewalls, i.e. the cone-shaped surfaces 8c and 8d). Note that the figure is erroneously referred to as Fig. 4 in the decision.

The critical issue here was claim construction. The decision again expands on a key aspect of claim construction, as follows (r. 14):

Claims are to be construed functionally, i.e. a feature is to be construed in such a way that it can fulfil the intended purpose. The claim should be read in such a way that the embodiments disclosed in the patent are literally covered; on the other hand, the wording of the claim should not be restricted to the embodiments if it covers further embodiments. When case-law refers to ‘broadest interpretation’ of claim features, the feature must still be capable of fulfilling its purpose in the context of the invention. This means that the claim must not be interpreted under its wording, but also not in such a way that embodiments are covered which do not achieve the inventive effect.

It is the second time that this paragraph is verbatim included in a decision in a short time; r. 14 of the present decision corresponds literally to r. 25 of O2016_009 (see this Blog here). For the time being, it is pretty clear what to expect at the FPC when it comes to claim construction.

By the way, you would not notice from the decision itself that the expert opinion of the judge-rapporteur has been reversed. It is just noted that the judge-rapporteur had provided his opinion on 25 March 2019, but the decision is silent about its content. Some earlier decision of the FPC gave at least some indication in this respect (e.g. O2015_011, r. 4: “On the question of validity [the judge-rapporteur] gave his expert opinion. The panel agrees with this opinion, with certain additions, as will be explained below. ), but the more recent decisions don’t give this insight anymore. What a bummer.

With the independent claim 1 being held likely invalid, the whole patent was held to be likely invalid. Thus, the request for interim injunctive relief was dismissed.

Reported by Martin WILMING

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Case No. S2018_007 | Decision of 2 May 2019

(1) C&E Fein GmbH
(2) Robert Bosch GmbH
./.
Coram Tools GmbH

Panel of Judges:

  • Dr. Mark SCHWEIZER
  • Dr. Markus A. MÜLLER
  • Dr. Stefan KOHLER

Judge-rapporteur:

  • Dr. Markus A. MÜLLER

Court Clerk:

  • Agnieszka TABERSKA

Representative(s) of Plaintiff:

Representative(s) of Defendant:

  • Dr. Andri HESS (Homburger)
  • Hans Rudolf GACHNANG (Gachnang), assisting in patent matters

FULL TEXT DECISION 
Case no.: S2018_007
Decision of: 2 May 2019
Fullscreen view (new tab)

PATENT IN SUIT

Fullscreen view (new tab)

BE ON THE KNOW

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

Anything but a quick fix: Coram beavering away at knocking out a patent

Reading time: 7 minutes

Case No. S2018_007 | Hearing of 15 April 2019

C&E Fein’s logo

The patent at stake is EP 3 027 362 B1 which is jointly owned by C&E Fein GmbH and Robert Bosch GmbH; see the EPO Register and Swissreg for further information. The invention is about a tool which is intended to be used with a machine tool, in particular a hand guided machine tool. The machine tool has a rotational drive, e.g. an oscillating drive. Examples include a drill, a grinding disc, a cutting disc or a circular saw. If you are interested in such detailed information, you will easily get the gist of the invention from e.g. Fig. 11 of EP’362 (see header picture) when reading the main claim of the patent.


Claim 1 of EP'362

A tool device (1, 1b) which is suitable for use with a machine tool (22), and in particular suitable for use with a hand guided machine tool, which has a driving device moving around a driving axis, and in particular oscillating around the driving axis,

and which has an attachment device (12) by means of which it can be fastened to a machine tool (22) in such a manner that the driving axis and a tool axis of rotation (5) are substantially coincident,

wherein, for receiving a driving force, the attachment device (12) comprises at least two driving area regions (2, 2a, 2b) each having a plurality of surface points (3) and which are spaced from this tool axis of rotation (5),

characterized in that tangent planes (4) at these surface points (3) are inclined relative to an axial plane (7), which includes the tool axis of rotation (5),

wherein the tangent planes (4) are inclined relative to a radial plane (6), which extends perpendicular to the tool axis of rotation (5),

wherein the attachment device (12) comprises a side wall,

wherein the side wall extends spaced radially from the tool axis of rotation (5),

wherein the side wall extends between a first, upper boundary plane (8a) and a second, lower boundary plane (8b), and

wherein the side wall comprises the driving area regions (2, 2a, 2b),

wherein a substantially hollow conical section is formed in the region of the attachment device by means of the side wall, which section has a cross section with a variable spacing of the side wall to the tool axis of rotation in a plane orthogonal to the tool axis of rotation.



The invention aims at providing a tool device in such a manner that the torque which is effectuated by the driving device of the machine is reliably transferred to the tool device. This is achieved by an attachment device (12) which comprises side walls that comprise driving area regions (2). Those driving areas (2) are spaced apart from the tool axis and inclined with respect to the axial plane. It is the function of the driving areas to receive a driving force.

Bosch’s logo

The plaintiffs asserted that EP’362 is infringed by defendant’s saw blades ‘B-Cut’ with ‘Quick Fixture’, and requested interim injunctive relief. Indeed, at least at first sight there are quite some similarities between Coram’s saw blades with ‘Quick Fixture’ (header image, right hand side) and the figures of the allegedly infringed patent (header image, left hand side). But the question of whether or not the allegedly infringing devices actually read on the claim was not an issue in the hearing. Likewise, it was only a sideshow in the hearing whether the matter was urgent, and whether the alleged violation threatened to cause not easily reparable harm to the plaintiffs (Art. 261(1) lit. b CPC).

An allegedly infringing saw blade with ‘Quick Fixture’
Coram’s logo

However, the defendant argued for nullity as a plea in defense, i.e. asserted a lack of novelty over EP 0 596 831 A1 and DE 2 120 669. The defendant construed EP’362 broadly and, thus, found the claimed subject-matter more readily anticipated in the prior art than the plaintiffs — and apparently also more readily than the judge-rapporteur. Specifically, the defendant argued that a ‘side-wall’ not necessarily implies a 3D-structure but is anticipated already by a 2D-surface (as disclosed in Fig. 4 of EP'831). With regard to DE'669, the defendant argued that a feature having a certain function (‘driving area […] for receiving a driving force’) is anticipated by a feature which might not exclusively have that function but nevertheless supports it (‘carrier with an projecting attachment’ as shown in Figs. 5 and 6 of DE'669).

In order to support views on correct claims construction from a Swiss perspective, O2013_008 (‘Sprühpistole’) was cited repeatedly by the parties. Unless the case was settled by agreement after the public part of the hearing, we might gain more insight on this issue soon.

The defendant further argued that the request for interim injunctive relief was overly broad and covered embodiments of the prior art.

Both representatives requested reimbursement of the necessary expenses for the assisting patent attorney in the same amount as are costs for legal representation according to the tariff (~kCHF 25 each).

On the procedural side, it was good to see that the projector / screen infrastructure was used again by at least one party and the court (connection of Windows® devices apparently is unproblematic). Further 8562532553 who call , plaintiffs’ counsel inquired whether the court wishes to be provided with pleading notes or not (see this Blog here for my very personal view, and the results of a little survey). Obviously, some judges appreciate written pleading notes; and some judges don’t. From a personal note of the president, however, it could be inferred that he liked pleadings in free speech. So, now we know!

Reported by Jolanda MINDER and Martin WILMING

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Case No. S2018_007 | Hearing of 15 April 2019

C&E Fein GmbH
Robert Bosch GmbH
./.
Coram Tools GmbH

Panel of Judges:

  • Dr. Mark SCHWEIZER
  • Dr. Markus MÜLLER-KÄGI
  • Dr. Stefan KOHLER

Judge-rapporteur:

  • Dr. Markus MÜLLER-KÄGI

Court Clerk:

  • Agnieszka TABERSKA

Representative(s) of Plaintiff:

Representative(s) of Defendant:

ANNOUNCEMENT

Fullscreen view (new tab)

PATENT IN SUIT

Fullscreen view (new tab)

BE ON THE KNOW

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