Claim dismissed, counterclaim dismissed: Huge expense, no recompense

Case No. O2015_018 | Decision of 15 June 2018 | ‘Instrument d’écriture’

The FPC handed down the decision in this remarkable litigation about a highly complex mechanical writing system. Please see this Blog here for a report about the main hearing and some background information.

What follows is a rather lengthy post, but this is due to the complexity of the case, both procedurally and technically.

  1. Party positions in a nutshell

It started off with Guenat‘s request that Swiss Finest‘s CH 704 790 B1 be declared invalid; note that the patent has been limited in March 2017 and re-published as CH 704 790 C1, see Swissreg for further bibliographic details. Guenat argued that the invention had been made by Frédéric Garinaud, an independent inventor who is quite renown for being the mastermind behind the Harry Winston Opus 8. Frédéric Garinaud had filed a patent application for a writing instrument; this patent application has then been assigned to Guenat and a patent was granted; EP 2 479 648 B1, see Swissreg and European Patent Register for further bibliographic details.

In Guenat’s view, the subject-matter of the Swiss Patent was invented by Frédéric Garinaud before it was used by Swiss Finest, and Frédéric Garinaud never transferred his patent rights to Swiss Finest. Guenat further argued that the invention of the Swiss Patent is obvious in view of a PowerPoint Presentation which had been sent to a third party without confidentiality obligation. Frédéric Garinaud being the only creator of the technical teachings contained in Garinaud’s European Patent and having transferred his patent rights to the plaintiff, Guenat argues that the defendant has no right to the Swiss Patent.

Swiss Finest countersued and requested that Guenat’s EP’648 be declared invalid, or assigned to Swiss Finest. Swiss Finest argued that in autumn 2010, Frédéric Garinaud had only a vague idea but had not yet completed an invention at that time. The invention was only made later with the substantial contribution of Swiss Finest’s employees after Frédéric Garinaud’s appointment as Creative Director, and any rights in the invention had been assigned to the defendant by employment contract.

Later, Swiss Finest argued that if Frédéric Garinaud was nevertheless considered to have already conceived the invention in the fall of 2010, the patent rights in this invention had been transferred to a simple partnership founded by Fabrice Thueler (owner of Swiss Finest) and Frédéric Garinaud in the preparation of a company ‘Garinaud SA’ which was foreseen to exploit the invention in dispute. Swiss Finest held thus to be the legitimate owner of the rights in the invention which is the subject of the Swiss Patent and, since the invention of the European Patent is the same, it is also entitled to the European Patent. Further, the subject-matter of the Swiss Patent was new and inventive in Swiss Finest’s view, since the PowerPoint presentation had not become publicly available because it had been sent only under an implicit confidentiality obligation. Even if one were to consider that the presentation was to be considered as prior art, the subject-matter of the Swiss patent is nonetheless inventive.

As if all this was not confusing enough, the case was spiced up further with Swiss Finest’s counterclaim for infringement by the Mechanical Fountain Pen RMS05:

Fountain Pen RMS05 by Richard Mille

This product has some amazing mechanics; see yourself:

In brief:

It’s complicated. Very complicated.

  1. The parties’ requests — and why they failed

The stage is set with a rather complicated factual situation. But at least some of the request could be dealt with quite straight forward by the court:

  1. Nullity for lack of entitlement

Guenat had requested that Swiss Finest’s Swiss patent be annulled based on Art. 26(1) lit. d PatA, i.e. for lack of entitlement. However, such request can only be brought by the entitled person; Art. 28 PatA. Guenat alleged that Frédéric Garinaud transferred ‘full and complete ownership’ of the European patent application to Guenat. Even though the inventions in both (Guenat’s) European and (Swiss Finest’s) Swiss patent may well be the same, this did not help. Frédéric Garinaud specifically assigned only the European patent application to Guenat, but not to the invention itself.

Guenat’s request for declaration of nullity based on Art. 26(1) lit. d PatA was thus held inadmissible for lack of standing.

  1. Nullity for lack of inventive step

Novelty of Swiss Finest’s Swiss patent after partial surrender was not contested anymore. But Guenat alleged obviousness over the PowerPoint presentation that had been sent to Hamdi Chatti of Louis Vuitton in 2010, in further view of i) F. Lecoultre, Les Montres Compliquées, 3ème éd. Neuchâtel 1985; ii) Huguenin / Guye / Gauchat, Les Echappements, 2ème éd. Neuchâtel 1974; and/or EP 1 221 383 A1.

Louis Vuitton logo

With respect to the PowerPoint presentation, the parties dissented whether or not it had been sent to Hamdi Chatti with an implied confidentiality obligation. The last page of the PowerPoint presentation mentioned ‘breveté’ (‘patented’), even though the Swiss patent application had not yet been filed. Frédéric Garinaud was apparently aware of this faux-pas; he wrote to his patent attorney:

I confess I anticipated the patent application.

The decision holds that under the specific circumstances there was no implicit confidentiality obligation associated with the PowerPoint presentation.

It then remained undisputed that the PowerPoint presentation was the closest prior art. However, quite a lot of differentiating features were missing. The missing features could be grouped into three aspects, and three partial problems are dealt with in the decision:

amovibilité the removable endpiece allows wide access to the pen holder, and indirectly to the other components housed in the front part of the writing instrument, avoiding manipulation by the writing tip;
échappement the choice of an escapement as a control mechanism offering a simple and proven solution to control energy release, while producing an audible indication;
verrouillage cooperation between the actuator and the locking system to unlock the power source to release the writing tip when the actuator is actuated, without additional action.

This is the only picture from the PowerPoint presentation in the decision:

PowerPoint presentation

As to the locking system (‘verrouillage‘), the decision holds that this was readily obvious (if not implicitly disclosed already in the PowerPoint presentation). Likewise, the escapement (‘échappement‘) is held obvious in further view of Lecoultre:

Lecoultre, p. 113

However, the removable endpiece (‘amovibilité‘) was more tricky, and the decision holds that this was not obvious from the cited prior art. When seeking a solution to the problem of replacing the ink cartridge, the skilled person would not have thought of a removable endpiece. Instead, he would have e.g. made a pen in which the writing tip as such is detachably mounted on the body or tip, like e.g. in EP'383:

EP 1 221 383 A1, Fig. 1

Thus, the subject-matter claimed in Swiss Finest’s Swiss patent was held to be non-obvious over the cited prior art.

  1. Nullity for yet further reasons

Guenat argued for nullity of Swiss Finest’s Swiss patent for yet further reasons.

First, an alleged undue extension of subject-matter (Art. 26(1) lit. c PatA) in the course of the partial surrender according to Art. 24 PatA; see the B1 and the C1 version of the Swiss patent below.

Second, Guenat alleged a lack of enabling disclosure; Art. 26(1) lit. b PatA.

Without setting out all the details here, both these alleged grounds of nullity failed for apparently straight forward reasons.

  1. Entitlement to Guenat’s European patent

The invention disclosed in the European Patent was already disclosed or was obvious to a large extent from the PowerPoint Presentation prepared and sent by Mr. Garinaud on November 17, 2010; see above — with the only exception of the removable endpiece. This removable endpiece was first mentioned by Frédéric Garinaud’s patent attorney François-Régis Richard (e-patent). In an email dated December 9, 2010, he wrote to Frédéric Garinaud:

I am also realizing that for the change of the cartridge, it would probably be simpler to disassemble the pen by its front part to avoid exposing the watch mechanism in the back.

This undisputedly was the first note of the removable endpiece. Whether the rights to this creative contribution were transferred to Frédéric Garinaud, as alleged by Guenat, could remain open. In any event, it had not been alleged that François-Régis Richard transferred the rights to Swiss Finest. Rather, Swiss Finest only held that the invention was made by Frédéric Garinaud when he was employed at Swiss Finest — which could not be true given the PowerPoint presentation and the email of December 9, 2010.

The decision thus holds that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the Swiss patent was created by Frédéric Garinaud before its use by Swiss Finest — with the exception of the removable endpiece which was proposed by François-Régis Richard without having assigned his rights in this contribution to the defendant.

In anticipation of this outcome, Swiss Finest apparently modified its position later and alleged that it had obtained rights in the European Patent by virtue of a simple partnership agreed between Frédéric Garinaud and Fabrice Thueler in preparation of a company ‘Garinaud SA’ to be established.

However, this was not convincing, either. The decision holds that it is unclear how the right to the patent, even if it had been transferred to the simple partnership, should finally reside with Swiss Finest. Members of a simple partnership are joint owners of the assets, with the consequence that they can only dispose of them jointly. In any event, according to the defendant’s allegations, Frédéric Garinaud and Fabrice Thueler were the partners of the simple partnership. A patent right could therefore only belong to them jointly. However, the defendant did not allege that Frédéric Garinaud agreed to transfer the right to the patent to it.

  1. Injunctive relief

Swiss Finest’s request for injunctive relief in respect of the ‘Mechanical Fountain Pen RMS05’ failed for a lack of concreteness of the attacked embodiment. See e.g. this Blog here (O2012_004, ‘Leichtbeton’) for further information on the necessary concreteness of a request for injunctive relief.

Swiss Finest did not argue for literal infringement, but rather only for infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents (DoE); see below. Still, the request for injunctive relief merely recited the wording of the claims, and was thus held inadmissible.

  1. Infringement by the Mechanical Fountain Pen RMS05
RMS05 (annotated)

Even though the request for injunctive relief was held inadmissible, the court still dealt with had to assess whether or not the RMS05 was infringing. Confused? I will clarify this later; see below.

It was undisputed that the RMS05 did not comprise a removable endpiece (’embout amovible’). However, Swiss Finest alleged that the function of the removable endpiece is to allow the writing tip to be removed from the pen body to allow an ink cartridge to be inserted or replaced. Swiss Finest further alleged that the fountain pen holder (indicated by the white arrow in the annotated figure) can be unscrewed and removed from the body using a wrench formed in the cap of the pen to place and replace an ink cartridge. In Swiss Finest’s view, the removable fountain pen holder inserted into the endpiece of the RMS05 amounts to an infringement under the DoE.

First, the court carefully defined the function of the removable endpiece in the context of the invention and reverted to ¶ [0015] of the Swiss patent:

It can still be noted that, to have access to the pen holder, the endpiece is screwed on the body and can therefore be unscrewed. The ink supply can then be changed by disassembling the pen holder and the intermediate holder.

The decision holds that this function does not exist in the RMS05. The endpiece is not removable and the disadvantage of the access to the fountain pen holder still remains in the RMS05. The fact that the fountain pen holder of the attacked embodiment can be removed does not change anything in this respect, because according to the Swiss Patent, after unscrewing the endpiece and facilitating access, the fountain pen holder is also removed to replace the cartridge.

As can be seen in the below screenshot of this video on YouTube, the fountain pen holder can be gripped with the cap and removed to replace the ink cartridge. However, the endpiece is fixed (indicated by the white arrow in the screenshot below).

RMS05, replacement of ink cartridge

Therefore, there is no removable endpiece in the RMS05, neither literally nor under the DoE, because the function of the removable endpiece is not realized in this pen. Thus, already the first question of the questionnaire established with O2014_002 was denied.

In sum, neither party succeeded with any attack. This somehow reminds me of the ‘Hornberg salute’:

‘Hornberger Schiessen’
  1. What the decision might be cited for
  1. Competency for assignment of all national validations of a European patent

Swiss Finest had requested that Guenat’s European patent be assigned to them. This was interpreted by the court as to concern all national validations of the meanwhile granted patent. To the best of my knowledge, it had been mentioned for the first time in O2015_009, ¶ 2.1, that the FPC is competent to decide also on ownership of foreign rights — without any in-depth discussion because it had not been decisive anymore in that case.

Not so here. The court now took the chance to set out its reasoning in any detail in ¶ 10 of the decision. The question of ownership of IP rights does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction under Art. 22(4) of the Lugano Convention; see decision C-288/82 of the ECJ, Ferdinand M.J.J. Duijnstee ./. Ludowijk Goderbauer and further literature in fn 1 of the decision. Under Swiss national law, international jurisdiction for disputes relating to intellectual property rights is governed by Art. 109 CPIL. However, only validity and infringement actions are mentioned, but not assignment actions. Jurisdiction for actions for the assignment of an IP right, in particular a patent, is therefore determined in accordance with the general rule of Art. 2 CPIL, according to which the Swiss judicial or administrative authorities of the defendant’s domicile are competent. As the plaintiff (defendant of the counterclaim) is domiciled in Switzerland, the FPC is also competent for counterclaims relating to the transfer of foreign patents.

  1. Right to accounting

The court re-visited the right to accounting based on Art. 66 lit. b PatA in view of critical voices in the aftermath of O2013_008; see ¶ 58 of the decision (note that fn 33 erroneously refers to O2012_008). However, the decision explicitly confirms the FPC’s practice that in case the court finds infringement there is a substantive entitlement to information and accounting based on Art. 66 lit. b PatA.

  1. Request for accounting with reference to a trademark / product name

As mentioned above, the request for injunctive relief was held inadmissible for lack of concreteness. Still, the court did the whole exercise of infringement analysis. It had to because of the request for accounting. The request for accounting referred to the ‘Mechanical Fountain Pen RMS05’. Such a description would be perfectly inadmissible in a request for injunctive relief, because the product name could be changed at any time. But not so in a request for accounting. The name of a product that has been sold in the past cannot be changed anymore:

However, in the case of conduct that has taken place in the past, it is permissible to specify the allegedly infringing object by means of a type designation or trademark. Such a designation cannot be changed for the past and one therefore knows exactly which product — namely in this case the product previously offered under the designation ‘Mechanical Fountain Pen RMS05’ — is the subject of the information request.

I guess we will see more such simplified requests for accounting in the future.

  1. No mixing-up of functions of features in the test for infringement under the DoE

There is an interesting general remark in ¶ 63 of the decision, i.e.:

One cannot reasonably expand the function of a claim feature and argue that this expanded function is fulfilled by another feature of the attacked embodiment, when the same element (penholder) with the same functionality (can be dismantled to replace the cartridge) is found in the invoked patent in parallel to claimed features, and independently of it (removable endpiece).

Reported by Martin WILMING

IMAGE CREDIT

Header image (Hôtel de Ville de Neuchâtel, Salle du Conseil Général) courtesy of Lucas Vuitel – ArcInfo.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Case No. O2015_018 | Decision of 15 June 2018 | ‘Instrument d’écriture’

Guenat SA Montres Valgine
./.
Swiss Finest SA

Judges:

  • Dr. Mark SCHWEIZER
  • Dr. Tobias BREMI
  • Dr. Philippe DUCOR
  • Christoph MÜLLER
  • Dr. Ralph SCHLOSSER

Judge-rapporteur:

  • Dr. Tobias BREMI

Court Clerk:

  • Susanne ANDERHALDEN

Representative(s) of Plaintiff:

  • Dr. Nathalie TISSOT (Etude Tissot)
  • Christophe SAAM (P&TS), assisting in patent matters

Representative(s) of Defendant:

  • Christoph KÜNZI (CBK)
  • Tarik KAPIC (Bovard), assisting in patent matters

DECISION IN FULL

Fullscreen view (new tab)

CH 704 790 B1

Fullscreen view (new tab)

CH 704 790 C1

Fullscreen view (new tab)

EP 2 497 648 B1

Fullscreen view (new tab)

FRÉDÉRIC GARINAUD

Harry Winston Opus 8

Frédéric Garinaud apparently is a master of complicated mechanics. He developed the Harry Winston Opus 8, a manually-wound watch with a ‘digital’ display of the hours and minutes.

The numbers appear only on demand, when a slide on the right side of the watch is activated. I could not help but do some further research on the Opus 8. It was a limited edition of 50 pieces only, on 9 July 2018 seen at luxurybazaar.com with a price tag of US$ 350’125,–. A somewhat fair deal in view of a purported retail price of US$ 449’700,–.

www.luxurybazaar.com; July 9, 2018

Get to know Mr Garinaud in this video, talking about the Opus 8:

BE ON THE KNOW

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

No further grounds for nullity of an SPC beyond Art. 140k of the Patent Act

Case No. O2017_016 ¦ Decision of 12 June 2018 ¦ “Verletzung Ergänzendes Schutzzertifikat; Sevelamer”

Following-up on a decision granting interim injunctive relief (reported here), the present decision in main proceedings now confirms this outcome. I have reported about the hearing in main proceedings on this Blog here.

As indicated earlier, the defendant 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 covered by the basic patent or that the attacked embodiment (sevelamer carbonate) is covered by the SPC. Rather, the defendant (only) alleged that the SPC is invalid because the office wrongfully granted re-establishment of rights (Art. 47 PatA) with respect to the time limit for filing the SPC application under Art. 140f PatA.

The FPC now confirms that the list of grounds for nullity of an SPC as set forth in Art. 140k PatA is exhaustive. The alleged wrongful reinstatement is thus no valid ground of nullity. In particular, the decision refers to the dispatch of the Federal Council when the SPCs had been enacted, i.e. the note that Art. 140k is to define the grounds for nullity:

Artikel 140k Nichtigkeit: Absatz 1: Neben dem Erlöschen bzw. der Sistierung des Zertifikats müssen auch die Gründe festgelegt werden, sie seine Nichtigkeit herbeiführen.

CJEU’s logo

Further, the decision reviews the CJEU’s case law and notes that the grounds for nullity according to Art. 15 of the EU SPC Regulation 469/2009 have never been held to be an open list. Rather, the CJEU only interpreted Art. 3, violation of which is referred to as a ground for nullity in Art. 15 of the EU SPC Regulation.

The FPC notes that the defendant could have appealed the decision of reinstatement (Art. 48 ff APA in the version of 09 December 2003), together with the decision of grant of the SPC – but failed to do so. The decision is thus formally final, and the defendant has to live with it.

If there is a take away message for practitioners in this decision, then it is surely to watch out for fresh grants (not only of SPCs, but also patents, trademarks, designs, etc.), to not miss the 30 days(!) time limit for an appeal; Art. 50(1) APA. This will be the only chance to fight against e.g. a wrongful reinstatement — which is more than you will ever get e.g. at the EPO where there is no such chance at all; but still, you need to act quickly.

Yet another interesting aspect of the decision is the assessment of the value in dispute. The parties heavily disagreed. Plaintiffs had considered it to be CHF 5m, while the defendant only estimated it to be CHF 500k. The FPC had thus to decide on this issue, too; Art. 91(2) CPC. Towards this end, it relied on some interesting rules of thumb:

  1. one third of the turnover of the originator’s product is replaced by the generic within about 2 years;
  2. the profit margin of a generic is 50%.

Based on these rules of thumb, and the plaintiffs’ own statement of an annual turnover in Switzerland of CHF 2.25m p.a., the FPC considered the the value in dispute as CHF 750k, for the roughly two years of protection at stake before the SPC will finally lapse in February 2019.

UPDATE 18 July 2018:

The decision has been appealed to the Supreme Court.

Reported by Martin WILMING

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Case No. O2017_016 ¦ Decision of 12 June 2018 ¦ “Verletzung Ergänzendes Schutzzertifikat; Sevelamer”

  1. Genzyme Corporation
  2. Sanofi-Aventis (Suisse) SA

./.

Salmon Pharma GmbH

Panel of Judges:

  • Dr. Ralph SCHLOSSER
  • Dr. Tobias BREMI
  • Dr. Stefan KOHLER
  • Dr. Daniel Kraus
  • Dr. Andreas SCHÖLLHORN SAVARY

Judge-rapporteur:

  • Dr. Tobias BREMI

Court Clerk:

  • Susanne ANDERHALDEN

Representative(s) of Requester:

Representative(s) of Respondent:

  • Dr. Robert BRINER (CMS)

DECISION IN FULL

Fullscreen view (new tab)

BASIC PATENT

Fullscreen view (new tab)

BE ON THE KNOW

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

Amlodipine / Valsartan: Controlling blood pressure while assessing obviousness

Case No. S2018_002 | Decision of 07 June 2018 | ‘Abweisung vorsorgliche Massnahme; Fachrichtervotum im parallelen Nichtigkeitsverfahren kein Grund für die Abänderung einer Massnahme; fehlende relative Dringlichkeit’

Note that Hepp Wenger Ryffel is involved in this matter on behalf of the defendant.

The patent in suit is EP 2 322 174 B1; see EPO Register and Swissreg for further details. It relates to a fixed dose combined unit dose form of two active ingredients for effective control of blood pressure, i.e. amlodipine and valsartan. The former is a dihydropyridine calcium-channel blocker, the latter is an angiotensin II antagonist.

Déjà-vu, you think? Indeed!

A first request for interim injunctive relief had been dismissed with decision of June 1, 2017; see S2017_001. At that time, the claimed subject-matter had been held obvious over Corea in further view of the skilled person’s knowledge. Separately, nullity proceedings had been pending at that time — and they are still pending now; O2016_006. The main hearing is scheduled for August 21, 2018; see here.

What has changed since then is that the patent has been maintained by an Opposition Division of the EPO in first instance at the end of a hearing on December 6-7, 2017. The reasoned decision has been issued on February 8, 2018; see here. Appeal proceedings are still pending at the EPO.

Wind of change?

In the aftermath of the EPO’s first instance decision, the wind has somewhat changed: While the Düsseldorf Regional Court had initially dismissed the request for injunctive relief (decision 4c O 6/17 of April 10, 2017, the Higher Regional Court overturned the decision of the Regional Court and granted interim injunctive relief (decision I - 2 U 18/17 of December 14, 2017), in consideration of the decision of the EPO’s OD. But it is not only that the wind has changed in Düsseldorf from the first to the second instance. Even the judge-rapporteur in both the first summary proceedings and the nullity proceedings at the FPC has changed his mind and gave an expert opinion in parallel nullity proceedings that the claimed subject-matter was non-obvious. The prior art and the arguments on file are still essentially the same, and it remains to be seen how the panel of five judges will actually decide.

In view of the above, Novartis again requested interim injunctive relief. The FPC noted that a second request for interim injunctive relief is possible in general, but only when the circumstances have changed. And even though this is the case here in view of the parallel decisions elsewhere, the FPC still denied the request. It did so because the facts (i.e. the relevant prior art documents) have not changed, but rather only the legal assessment thereof; ¶4.3.

Vorliegend ist […] zu berücksichtigen, dass die von den Klägerinnen genannten Parallelurteile nicht neuen Stand der Technik behandeln, sondern den schon im ersten Massnahmeverfahren bekannten Stand der Technik anders würdigen.

The FPC held that assessment of validity of the patent in suit apparently is a borderline case which requires in-depth assessment in main proceedings; ¶4.4.

Vielmehr bedarf die Klärung der Frage der Rechtsbeständigkeit des Klagepatents einer eingehenderen Prüfung im ordentlichen Verfahren.

Moreover, the FPC held that there was no urgency anymore. A decision in the present summary proceedings could not be expected substantially earlier than a decision in parallel nullity proceedings, if earlier at all.


Further, the FPC noted that Novartis could have well initiated main proceedings for infringement at any time since defendant’s product launch in January 2017, and now has to live with the consequences of not having done so.

Reported by Martin WILMING

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Case No. S2018_002 | Decision of 07 June 2018 | ‘Abweisung vorsorgliche Massnahme; Fachrichtervotum im parallelen Nichtigkeitsverfahren kein Grund für die Abänderung einer Massnahme; fehlende relative Dringlichkeit’

  1. Novartis Pharma AG
  2. Novartis Pharma Schweiz AG

./.

Mepha Pharma AG

Panel of Judges:

  • Dr. Daniel KRAUS
  • Dr. Tobias BREMI
  • Prisca VON BALLMOOS

Reporting Judge:

  • Dr. Tobias BREMI

Court Clerk:

  • Susanne ANDERHALDEN

Representative(s) of Plaintiff:

Representative(s) of Defendant:

DECISION IN FULL

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.

Omega ./. Montres Tudor et al. — Finding balance …

Case No. O2015_008 ¦ Decision of 14 March 2018 ¦ ‘Balancier de montre’

Omega logo

We have reported on the background of this case and the main hearing on this Blog here. In brief, infringement of Omega‘s EP 1 837 719 B1 is at stake; see EPO Register and Swissreg for further bibliographic details.

The single independent claim 1 as granted reads as follows:

Balance for a timepiece movement including a felloe (3), arms (4) connecting the felloe (3) to the balance staff and inertia blocks (11) for adjusting the unbalance and regulating the moment of inertia, characterized in that the felloe (3) includes studs (7) directed inwards, a threaded hole (9) into which said inertia blocks (11) are screwed from the inside, passing through said felloe (3) and said studs (7).

This is best understood with the figures of the patent at hand:

Tudor logo

The attacked embodiments are Tudor‘s calibres MT5621 and MT5612. Defendants Tudor and Detech denied infringement and countersued for invalidity.

Let’s get to the details now, at least to some extent. The decision is a booklet of 58 pages, and I will thus only comment on what I believe are the most relevant issues of the case.

The requests

Faced with a counterclaim for invalidity, Omega defended the patent substantially as granted as the main request (MR; see the slight amendment in feature #5, below), and with two auxiliary requests (AR1 and AR2) to a more limited extent only. In the feature analysis below, claim 1 according to the MR is structured into features 1-7. Claim 1 according to AR1 comprises features 1-8, and AR2 comprises features 1-9, respectively.

FR EN
1 Balancier pour mouvement d’horlogerie Balance for a timepiece movement
2 comportant une serge (3) including a felloe (3)
3 des bras (4) reliant la serge (3) à l’axe de balancier arms (4) connecting the felloe (3) to the balance staff
4 et des masselottes (11) permettant d’ajuster le balourd et de régler le moment d’inertie and inertia blocks (11) for adjusting the unbalance and regulating the moment of inertia
5 caractérisé en ce que la serge (3)  comporte des plots (7) dirigés radialement1 vers l’intérieur characterized in that the felloe (3) includes studs (7) directed radially1 inwards
6 ladite serge (3) et lesdits plots (7) étant traversés par un trou taraudé (9) a threaded hole (9) passing through said felloe (3) and said studs (7)
7 dans lequel lesdites masselottes (11) sont vissées depuis l’intérieur into which said inertia blocks (11) are screwed from the inside
8 les masselottes peuvent être mues indépendamment les unes des autres2 the inertia blocks can be moved independently of each other2
9 le serge présente unse surface externe de diamètre constant sur tout son pourtour3 the felloe has an external surface of constant diameter all around its circumference3

1 Note that ‘radialement’ / ‘radially’ is not included in claim 1 as granted.
2 Additional feature of claim 1 in AR1 vis-à-vis the MR.
3 Additional feature of claim 1 in AR2 vis-à-vis AR1.

Omega’s requests for injunctive relief are adapted accordingly in MR, AR1 and AR2, to conform with the respective requests to maintain the patent. The requests for injunctive relief additionally refer to an illustration of the attacked embodiment that is reproduced below. However, I have amended the reference numbers in accordance with those used in the patent.

Illustration of the claim features included in the requests for injunctive relief

The element marked-up with ‘Δ’ in the above illustration refers to a feature which was not literally fulfilled by the attacked embodiment, but for which infringement under the DoE was alleged, i.e. feature #7 in the table above:

the inertia blocks (11) are screwed [into the threaded hole (9)] from the inside

Rather, the request for injunctive relief read as follows:

les masselottes sont dépourvues de tête et dotées de lobes internes permettant leur vissage depuis l’extérieur de la serge

I.e., in English language:

the inertia blocks are headless and equipped with internal lobes allowing them to be screwed from outside the felloe

Claim construction re feature #7

Now, what does it mean in French that

les masselottes sont vissées depuis l’intérieur?

Does it only require that the inertia blocks can be adjusted from the inside, irrespective of how / from which direction they had been initially placed in the hole, i.e. from the inside or outside of the felloe? Or is it mandatory that the inertia blocks at least could have been placed in the hole from inside of the felloe? Note that EP’719  only discloses inertia blocks with heads (13) that cannot go through the hole, i.e. they must be / have been placed from inside of the felloe; see e.g. ¶[0010].

Anyway, I leave this tricky linguistic question to the francophones to decide for themselves. The decision holds that this feature #7 only requires that the inertia blocks could have been inserted and screwed from the inside during the assembly of the balance wheel (by an access between the serge and the centre of the serge) in the hole traversing the stud and the felloe.

Consequently, feature #7 does not cover inertia blocks which, already present in the tapped holes of the serge and the studs, can be screwed from the inside for the purpose of adjusting the inertia and unbalance, but which would not have previously been inserted and screwed into the corresponding hole from the inside of the felloe.

Novelty

The balance wheel in DE 864 827 comprises a stud (‘plot’) in the sense of feature #5; see the section 1g in the figures below . But since the screws with the inertia blocks have a head on the outside of the felloe, they do not meet the definition of feature #7 as construed above.

Novelty over DE 864 827 was thus acknowledged.

On the other hand, the balance wheel of US 759,914 has inertia blocks must have been placed from the inside; see the screw head on the inner side of the felloe in the figures below.

But what is missing here is the stud (‘plot’) according to feature #5. Thus, novelty was acknowledged over US 759,914.

The balance wheel of US 2,958,997 has some axial screws (21) which are not inertia blocks. On the other hand, it is not possible that the inertia blocks (3) have been placed from the inside since the screw head is outside of the felloe.

US 2,958,997 (Fig. 4)

Features #6 and #7 were not considered anticipated, and novelty was thus acknowledged.

Finally, novelty over the balance wheel ‘Jean Martin’ is discussed, a photograph of which is reproduced in the decision (don’t blame me for the poor quality, it’s in the original):

Balance wheel ‘Jean Martin’

Here, the studs are arranged axially on top of the felloe. The hole thus only passes through the stud, not through the felloe. Features #6 and #7 were not considered anticipated, and novelty was thus acknowledged.

Inventive step

Inventive step has been assessed on the basis of US 759,914 as closest prior art; see figures above. The distinguishing features are #6 and #7, i.e. the studs (which are directed inwards), and the inertia blocks arrangeable in a hole through the stud (and the felloe) from the inside.

Following Omega’s proposal, the objective technical problem has been defined as follows:

Increasing the diameter of a balance wheel without modifying its inertia.

Now, here is the definition of a stud (‘plot’) according to Berner (FR/EN):

Petite pièce métallique, généralement cylindrique qui sert de butée ou qui renforce la partie d’une pièce qui doit recevoir une goupille ou une vis.

Small metal part, usually cylindrical, used as a stop or as a means of strengthening a part that takes a pin or screw.

It is held in the decision that, with this skilled person’s knowledge in mind, it was obvious to arrange studs on the felloe to reinforce the holes. But on which side? On the inside or the outside of the felloe? When placed on the inside, the diameter of the felloe can be larger. Anyway, with reference to T107/02 and T739/08, it is held that a choice from a very limited number of alternatives without an unexpected effect cannot be considered inventive.

The auxiliary requests did not succeed, either. As to AR1, the inertia blocks can be moved independently of each other already in US 759,914. As to AR2, the felloe has an external surface of constant diameter all around its circumference already in US 759,914.

Late request – belated?

Omega had filed yet another, even more limited auxiliary request (AR3) with the response to the expert opinion of the judge-rapporteur. This request was not admitted into the proceedings anymore, with reference to O2015_012. In particular, the decision holds that the expert opinion did not contain new facts or arguments of a technical nature which had not been argued by the parties.

In a nutshell

Omega’s claim for infringement has been rejected, Tudor’s / Detech’s counterclaim for invalidity has been allowed and EP(CH) 1 837 719 B1 declared invalid.

The decision can still be appealed to the Supreme Court.

UPDATE 14 May 2018:

The decision has been appealed to the Supreme Court.

Reported by Martin WILMING

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Case No. O2015_008 ¦ Decision of 14 March 2018 ¦ ‘Balancier de montre’

Omega S.A.

./.

  1. Montres Tudor S.A.
  2. Detech S.A.

Judge(s):

  • Dr. Mark SCHWEIZER
  • Frank SCHNYDER
  • Dr. Tobias BREMI
  • Dr. Philippe DUCOR
  • Christoph MÜLLER

Judge-rapporteur:

  • Frank SCHNYDER

Court Clerk:

  • Susanne ANDERHALDEN

Representative(s) of Plaintiff:

Representative(s) of Defendants:

FULL TEXT DECISION

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.

Omega ./. Tudor et al.: The aftermath of Baselworld 2015

Case No. O2015_008 ¦ Main hearing of 30 January 2018

Omega logo

The main hearing in this matter took place earlier today.

See this Blog here for a brief review of the subject-matter at stake, based on the court’s detailed announcement of the hearing.

  1. Background of the case

Infringement of Omega‘s  EP 1 837 719 B1 is at stake; see EPO Register and Swissreg for further bibliographic details.

The single independent claim 1 reads as follows:

Balance for a timepiece movement including a felloe (3), arms (4) connecting the felloe (3) to the balance staff and inertia blocks (11) for adjusting the unbalance and regulating the moment of inertia, characterized in that the felloe (3) includes studs (7) directed inwards, a threaded hole (9) into which said inertia blocks (11) are screwed from the inside, passing through said felloe (3) and said studs (7).

This is best understood with Fig. 1 of the patent at hand:

Fig. 1 of the patent in suit

The attacked embodiments are Tudor‘s calibres MT5621 and MT5612; infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents is alleged. The current versions of the calibres are shown below:

Interestingly, the balance wheels looked a little different when the calibre had been introduced back in 2015 at Baselworld; see here. Do you notice the different balance wheel in the top right of the calibre?

Former promotional material re Tudor’s calibre MT5621

We have found a perspective picture of the old MT5612 balance wheel on the internet here; a similar picture had been shown in the hearing.

When digging a bit deeper, we came across a report in a watch Blog suggesting that the change of the balance wheel had apparently been implemented in view of Omega’s intervention at Baselworld 2015. Indeed, that would be a perfect fit with the case number of the present matter referring back to 2015.

Now, about three years later, the case surfaces again.

Tudor logo

Defendants Tudor and Detech deny infringement under the DoE and countersued for invalidity in view of DE 864 827US 759,914US 2,958,997, ROLEX calibres and the common general knowledge of the skilled person.

  1. Learnings from the hearing
UPDATE Feb 1, 2018:

The first version of this post indicated that the expert opinion of the judge-rapporteur had already addressed infringement. I have been informed by plaintiff’s counsel that this is not the case. Accordingly, this has been corrected below. /MW

Based on what  can be concluded from the pleadings, plaintiff is on the defensive. The expert opinion of the judge-rapporteur had apparently held that the claimed subject-matter (to the extent invoked) was novel, but not inventive. However, the judge-rapporteur had not yet assessed infringement in his expert opinion.

Most of the discussion was about fulfilment the feature

[…] inertia blocks (11) are screwed into a threaded hole (9) from the inside […].

Evidently, the parties disagree on whether or not this feature is fulfilled in the attacked embodiment(s). Is it sufficient for infringement to be ruled out if the inertia blocks are screwed into the threaded hole from the outside? It remains to bee seen whether fixation from the outside might constitute infringement under the DoE. In particular, plaintiff argued that there was no indication whatsoever in the patent in suit that the direction of fixation was of any relevance. Guess which way the wind is blowing: Pemetrexed.

The final judgment needs to be awaited, to fully understand how the inertia blocks in the attacked embodiments are actually fixed.

The value in dispute is CHF 1M. The parties did not enter into settlement discussions today.

Reported by Jolanda MINDER and Martin WILMING

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Case No. O2015_008 ¦ Main hearing of 30 January 2018

Omega S.A.

./.

  1. Montres Tudor S.A.
  2. Detech S.A.

Judge(s):

  • Dr. Mark SCHWEIZER
  • Dr. Tobias BREMI
  • Frank SCHNYDER
  • Dr. Philippe DUCOR
  • Christoph MÜLLER

Court Clerk:

  • Susanne ANDERHALDEN

Representative(s) of Plaintiff:

Representative(s) of Defendants:

PATENT IN SUIT

Fullscreen view (new tab)

HEARING NOTES

ANNOUNCEMENT

Fullscreen view (new tab)

BE ON THE KNOW

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

It Ain’t Over ’til It’s Over

Case No. O2017_019 ¦ Decision of 21 December 2017 ¦ “Pemetrexed: Abweisung der Feststellungsklage auf Nichtverletzung (Rückweisung O2015_004)”

Note that Hepp Wenger Ryffel is involved in this matter on behalf of the plaintiff.
Lenny Kravitz; (c) Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 3.0
“It Ain’t Over ’til It’s Over” (Lenny Kravitz; © Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 3.0 license)

Pemetrexed revisited, once again:

As reported earlier on this Blog here, the Supreme Court had remitted the case to the FPC with the order to dismiss the suit with respect to the requested declaratory judgment of non-infringement for the diacid, and to also assess the two other salts that had initially been at stake in first instance proceedings.

Well, the first part is a no-brainer. The FPC is bound to the legal assessment of the Supreme Court, and it thus dismissed the suit with respect to the diacid.

As to the two other salts, i.e. pemetrexed dipotassium and pemetrexed ditromethamine, the FPC briefly assessed infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

The first question to be answered in the assessment of infringement under the DoE is whether the replaced feature and the replacing feature have the same objective function. The decision holds that it is only the cation that is different, and that the dianion is the same in any event. Further, it is held that both the dipotassium and the ditromethamine salt will be dissociated under physiological conditions, and everything suggests that the mode of action is determined by the dianion.

Pemetrexeddikalium unterscheidet sich von Pemetrexeddinatrium bzw. Pemetrexeddisäure lediglich durch das Kation. Das Dianion ist in allen Fällen identisch. Pemetrexeddikalium liegt bei physiologischem pH dissoziiert in Kation und Dianion vor. Es spricht alles dafür, dass die Wirkungsweise durch das Pemetrexed-Dianion gegeben ist.

Aus diesen Gründen ist eine Gleichwirkung für Pemetrexeddikalium gegeben ist.

One may like or dislike the outcome as it is. Be this as it may. What is troubling me is that this reasoning is only focused on the mode of action of the dianion. Note that the dianion neither is the replaced feature nor the replacing feature. Does this reasoning actually address the first question of the FPC’s questionnaire for the assessment under the DoE at all?

Does the replacing feature objectively fulfil the same function? (‘Gleichwirkung’)

Is there a need to rephrase the first question? Time will show, I guess.

The FPC answered the second and third question in the affirmative, too. It did so by mere reference to the considerations of the Supreme Court.

In sum, all three pemetrexed forms (diacid, dipotassium and ditromethamine) are held to infringe the patent in suit.

Reported by Martin WILMING

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Case No. O2017_019 ¦ Decision of 21 December 2017 ¦ “Pemetrexed: Abweisung der Feststellungsklage auf Nichtverletzung (Rückweisung O2015_004)”

Actavis Switzerland AG

./.

(1) Eli Lilly and Company
(2) Eli Lilly (Suisse) SA

Composition of the Board of the FPC:

  • Dr. Dieter BRÄNDLE
  • Dr. Roland DUX
  • Prisca VON BALLMOOS

Judge-rapporteur:

  • Dr. Roland DUX

Court Clerk:

  • Susanne ANDERHALDEN

Representative(s) of Plaintiff:

Representative(s) of Defendant:

DECISION IN FULL

Download (PDF, 192KB)

PATENT IN SUIT

Download (PDF, 878KB)

BE ON THE KNOW

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

Omega ./. Tudor et al.: The next decision on the DoE approaching?

Case No. O2015_008 ¦ Main hearing of 30 January 2018

Omega logo

The FPC today published an announcement of the main hearing in this matter. Infringement of Omega‘s  EP 1 837 719 B1 is at stake; see EPO Register and Swissreg for further bibliographic details.

The single independent claim 1 reads as follows:

Balance for a timepiece movement including a felloe (3), arms (4) connecting the felloe (3) to the balance staff and inertia blocks (11) for adjusting the unbalance and regulating the moment of inertia, characterized in that the felloe (3) includes studs (7) directed inwards, a threaded hole (9) into which said inertia blocks (11) are screwed from the inside, passing through said felloe (3) and said studs (7).

The attacked embodiments are Tudor‘s calibres MT5621 and MT5612; infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents is alleged.

Defendants Tudor and Detech deny infringement under the DoE and countersued for invalidity in view of DE 864 827US 759,914US 2,958,997, ROLEX calibres and the common general knowledge of the skilled person.

Reported by Martin WILMING

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Case No. O2015_008 ¦ Main hearing of 30 January 2018

Omega S.A.

./.

  1. Montres Tudor S.A.
  2. Detech S.A.

PATENT IN SUIT

Download (PDF, 234KB)

ANNOUNCEMENT

Download (PDF, 80KB)

BE ON THE KNOW

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

Swiss Supreme Court sides with German and UK courts re Pemetrexed, O2015_004 lifted

Case No. 4A_208/2017 (Supreme Court) ¦ Decision of 20 October 2017 ¦ “Pemetrexed; O2015_004”

Note that Hepp Wenger Ryffel is involved in this matter on behalf of the respondent / plaintiff.

The decision has not yet been officially published as per today (Nov 2), but has been published already on EPLAW Blog on Nov 1.

Little time? Read the summary.

If this is the first time that you read about the pemetrexed litigation saga, please see this Blog here for a review of the decision O2015_004 under appeal and some further background information.

The patent in suit is Lilly‘s EP 1 313 508 B1; see the EPO Register and Swissreg for further details. It’s all about a generic version of Lilly’s Alimta®, i.e. Actavis’ Amtiris®. While the claims of EP’508 specifically require  pemetrexed disodium, Amtiris® comprises pemetrexed diacid.

In a nutshell, the FPC had taken a stepwise approach in O2015_004. In first place, it was held that limitation from antifolate to pemetrexed disodium during prosecution constitutes an abandonment of subject-matter. In an auxiliary assessment, i.e. if one were to consider the limitation not as an abandonment, the FPC denied an infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents (DoE) since the skilled person would have understood the wording pemetrexed disodium as a strict limitation, in view of the claims and in further consideration of the specification.

As you were! The Supreme Court did not agree with either of these two findings.

1.   Abandonment of subject-matter

The wording of the claims had been narrowed down during prosecution: The broad term antifolate had been amended in the claims to pemtrexed in first place and finally to pemetrexed disodium, to restore novelty while at the same time complying with Art. 123(2) EPC.

This limitation is also reflected in the description. The definition in paragraph [0022] of EP’508 had only been introduced during prosecution:

Amended description during prosecution (mark-up)

The FPC had held that the patentee is bound by the limitation that he had accepted during prosecution in order to obtain the patent, and that he is therefore prevented under principles of good faith (Art. 2 CC) to now circumvent this limitation by asserting equivalence as if the limitation had not  been made.

The Supreme Court notes that behavior in contradiction to one’s prior acts is not generally prohibited under the principle of good faith, but only if the prior act gave rise to a legitimate trust of others which then is frustrated by the later act (BGE 125 III 257, r. 2a). The Supreme Court further holds that the limitation of a claim feature does not readily constitute an abandonment of the protection against infringement under the DoE for that feature without taking the reasons of the limitation into account.

Die Einschränkung eines Merkmals stellt nicht ohne weiteres und unbesehen des Grundes für diese Einschränkung eine Erklärung des Verzichts auf den Schutz gegen Nachahmung dar.

The Supreme Court did not identify any special circumstances that would justify the use of the makeshift of Art. 2 CC to prevent gross injustice, either.

2.   Infringement under the DoE

The Supreme Court held that the pemetrexed anion is the active substance with anti-cancer effect and agreed with the FPC’s finding that the diacid and the disodium salt objectively fulfil the same function.

The second question (accessibility / ‘Auffindbarkeit’) is somewhat tricky, again. The Supreme Court recites the FPC in that accessibility of the replacing feature had been answered in the affirmative; ¶5.4.

Die Vorinstanz hat die Auffindbarkeit der abgewandelten Form für den Fachmann bejaht.

This is not very precise. The second question, in the FPC’s approach, asks for the accessibility of the same effect when the skilled person is confronted with both the claimed variant and the replacing variant. The FPC’s second question is not about how to get to the replacing variant; it’s already there.

Anyway, the Supreme Court held that the skilled person had a reasonable expectation that the replacing variant would work. The necessity of some routine experiments to confirm this expectiation is of no avail. Accessibility was thus confirmed, too.

The Supreme Court also answered the third question (same value / ‘Gleichwertigkeit’) in the affirmative. The skilled person had no reason to believe that the patentee had only intended protection for the literal meaning of the claim, i.e. pemetrexed disodium.

Der Fachmann […] hatte keinen Grund zur Annahme, die Patentinhaberin habe Schutz nur für die wortsinngemässe Ausführung beansprucht.

Even though it is noted in paragraph [0022] of the patent (see marked-up excerpt above) that

[t]he ‘antifolate’ or ‘antifolate drug’ for use in this invention is Pemetrexed disodium (ALIMTA®), as manufactured by Eli Lilly & Co.

the Supreme Court held that there is no apparent reason why the patent would expand on the properties and ways of action of antifolates in general if it was intended to limit the claimed scope to the product manufacted by the patentee; ¶5.5.6.

Wenn zudem in der Beschreibung erklärt wird, das für die Erfindung verwendete Antifolat sei das von der Patentinhaberin hergestellte Pemetrexed-Dinatrium der Marke ‘Alimta’, so ergibt sich daraus bei objektiver Betrachtung eine Beschränkung ausschliesslich auf dieses Antifolat im Gesamtzusammenhang der Beschreibung nicht. Denn es ist nicht erkennbar, weshalb im Patent die Eigenschaften und die Wirkungsweise von Antifolaten allgemein beschrieben werden sollte, wenn das von der Erfindung beanspruchte tumorhemmende Produkt ausschliesslich das von der Patentinhaberin hergestellte Markenprodukt sein sollte.

Concluding, the Supreme Court held that use of pemetrexed diacid instead of pemetrexed disodium infringes the patent under the DoE.

The case has been remitted to the FPC with the order to dismiss the suit with respect to the requested declaratory judgment of non-infringement for the diacid, and to also assess the two other salts that had initially been at stake in first instance proceedings.

Reported by Martin WILMING

CORRESPONDING DECISIONS

For ease of reference, here is a list of some corresponding decisions of highest instance available elsewhere, based on the same European patent:

U.K. (Supreme Court) 2017 UKSC 48
Germany (Supreme Court)  X ZR 16/09
Germany (HRC Munich)  6 U 3039/16
Italy (TO Milano)  54470/2016
The Netherlands (Rechtbank Den Haag) C/09/538525 / KG ZA 17-1159

I will update the list when more decisions are available.

COMMENTS

Attorney’s dilemma

Lawyers and patent attorneys are having a hard time nowadays when advising clients on infringment under the DoE.

Maybe it should not be me to overly analyse this decision since my firm has been involved in this matter, as noted above. But I was taken aback by some key elements of the decision which are of relevance far beyond the subject-matter at stake in the present matter, and I will briefly address those aspects on a general level only, to the extent possible. 

So, here is some food for further thought:

i)   The gist of the DoE?

The Supreme Court comes up with a very pronounced gist of the DoE; see ¶5.5.3:

Der Schutzbereich wird – mit Ausnahme der nachfolgend zu erörternden bewusst gewählten Beschränkung – über die genaue wörtliche Anwendung der Patentansprüche hinaus gewährt in der Erkenntnis, dass es auch bei sorgfältiger und umsichtiger Redaktion unmöglich ist, in einer technischen Anleitung alle möglichen Ausführungen zu benennen. Der Schutz soll daher auch gewährt werden, wenn die technische Anleitung den Fachmann über den zu engen Wortsinn hinaus anweist, wie die Erfindung zu verwirklichen ist.

This can be loosely translated as follows:

With the exception of a deliberately chosen limitation the scope of protection shall extend beyond the literal meaning, in appreciation of the fact that it is not possible to specify all potential embodiments even when the text is redacted with all due care and diligence. Protection shall thus also be granted when the technical teaching instructs the skilled person how to work the invention beyond the overly limited literal meaning.

I do not agree.

This rationale would actually excuse each and every mishap in drafting / prosecution of an application, be it a minor negligence, a gross error or just blatant foolery. All of this could not reasonably be considered deliberately chosen (‘bewusst gewählt’) and would thus not be covered by the exception.

Now, as long as the skilled person nevertheless understands that the teaching of the patent is applicable beyond the literal meaning, it shall still be covered by the scope of the claim under the DoE?

Finding balance

Is this the right balance between legal certainty for the public and forgiveness of drafting / prosecution failures?

The Protocol on Interpretation of Art. 69 is not that strict. It only requires that due account shall be taken of any element which is equivalent to an element specified in the claims when determining the scope of protection. Does ‘due account’ really mean that the only exception is an express and deliberatly chosen limitation?

I am in doubt.

One of the best pieces on the various situations where the DoE is typically invoked that I have come across still is in Arnold J’s judgment at the High Court of Justice in the corresponding matter in the U.K., [2014] EWHC 1511 (Pat), in ¶104 ff.:

[E]xperience shows that patentees resort to arguments about equivalents in three main classes of case. The first is where, with the benefit of hindsight, it can be seen that the patent was unfortunately drafted, whether because of poor instructions from the inventor or poor drafting by his patent attorney or a combination of these things. […] The second class is where technology has moved on since the priority or filing date of the patent. […] The third class is where the patentee now regrets a decision taken during the course of prosecution of the patent application, whether by himself or by the examiner, and is trying to avoid the consequences of that decision.

Arnold J went on in his assessment of the first and the third class of cases in ¶105 and ¶107, respectively:

In the first class of case, the law recognises that drafting patent claims is a difficult and imprecise art and that third parties should not be allowed to exploit infelicities of drafting where it is reasonably clear that those infelicities should not affect the scope of the claim. This is in order to provide ‘fair protection for the patent proprietor’. The law also recognises, however, the countervailing consideration that third parties are entitled to rely on the drafting of the claim when deciding on a commercial course of action. There is no tort of avoiding a patent claim. Thus it is also necessary to provide ‘a reasonable degree of legal certainty for third parties’. The problem, of course, is that what is fair protection to one person is legal uncertainty to another. Conversely, what is reasonable legal certainty to the second person is a denial of protection to the first. The courts have to strike a balance. […]

In the third class of case, there is no reason why the law should be sympathetic to the patentee. Not only do applicants generally rely on skilled professional advice, but also they can appeal against adverse decisions of examiners during the course of prosecution if they consider that those decisions are wrong. If the courts allow decisions as to claim scope made by the examiner during the course of prosecution which have not been successfully appealed effectively to be overturned by decisions on claim construction, the courts undermine the important role of the examiner. This is still more so if the courts allow decisions as to claim scope made by the applicant during the course of prosecution effectively to be reversed by decisions on claim construction.

ii)  The more apparent the replacing feature (but not too much, please!), the more likely the third question would be answered in the affirmative?

There has been a guiding principle in the assessment of equivalents according to the German Federal Supreme Court since the ‘Okklusionsvorrichtung‘ decision (X ZR 16/09):

If the description discloses several possibilities regarding how a specific technical effect can be attained but only one possibility has been included in the patent claim, the use of the other possibilities generally does not constitute an infringement under the doctrine of equivalence.

So, an explicit mentioning of two alternatives in the specification while only one of these alternatives is recited in the claim rules out an infringement under the DoE. Fine.

But what if there is explicit disclosure of a generic class of compounds (‘antifolate’) and only a single specific variant (‘pemetrexed disodium’) in the claims and specification? Luckily, the German Federal Supreme Court had to assess the parallel case in Germany, too (X ZR 29/15): It concluded that this is not sufficient per se. But if there were further indications that the skilled person reads the other variants along in his head (‘unmittelbar mitlesen’), then ‘Okklusionvorrichtung’ might well be applicable. Fine, too.

Now, this is the chemist in me speaking to the other chemists out there: Imagine you readily appreciate the below as a preferred embodiment of a group of compounds (¶5.5.7), can you avoid reading along in your head some very close relatives of this compound?

Pemetrexed disodium
Pemetrexed disodium

The chemist in me has a hard time to not think of some close relatives in the upper right of the molecule. 

Safeguarding legal certainty for the public has always been an issue. The following is taken from Miller v. Bridgeport Brass Co. of ancient 1881:

[I]t must be remembered that the claim of a specific device or combination, and an omission to claim other devices or combinations apparent on the face of the patent, are, in law, a dedication to the public of that which is not claimed. It is a declaration that that which is not claimed is either not the patentee’s invention, or, if his, he dedicates it to the public.

In my perception, this still holds true nowadays; equivalence must not extend to what is apparent on the face of the patent, but remained unclaimed.

I have been a strong believer in the power of the questionnaires. But, frankly, I am getting more and more frustrated. When cases come up where the result based on just two questions appears to be inappropriate, a third one is added (Germany and Switzerland). If the result with three questions appears to be inappropriate, the questions are amended (UK). Still, judgments on equivalence are frequently reversed even in one and the same jurisdiction, and are rarely consistent across jurisdictions. So, what is it all worth? The questionnaires apparently only provide an illusion of certainty, don’t they? And they are not the law. (If you catch me red-handed when using the questionnaire nevertheless, don’t blame me for this paragraph. I am just conforming with the landmark case law …)

iii)   What about inventive equivalents?

The Supreme Court elaborates on the second criterion (accessibility / ‘Auffindbarkeit’) in the assessment of equivalents in ¶5.4 ff. It is held in ¶5.4.1:

Der Fachmann […] muss aufgrund seines Allgemeinwissens durch die patentierte Erfindung zur Abwandlung angeregt werden; beruht die Abwandlung ihrerseits auf erfinderischer Tätigkeit, ist die Auffindbarkeit ausgeschlossen (vgl. BGE 125 III 29 E. 3b S. 32 mit Verweisen).

Loosely translated as follows:

The skilled person must be prompted to the replaced feature by his common general knowledge and based on the patented invention; accessibility is ruled out if the replacing feature itself is based on an inventive step ([…]).

The decision suggests in ¶5.4.1 that this is common ground for the Supreme Courts of the UK, Germany and Switzerland.

I don’t think that this is correct. Lord Neuberger in the corresponding decision in the UK explicitly held in ¶64:

The second test applied by the German courts, as I understand it, at least sometimes appears to require the variation not to be inventive, but I am not sure that that is an appropriate requirement, although it is unnecessary to decide that point on this appeal. If the variation represents an inventive step, while it may render it less likely that the patentee will succeed on the second reformulated question, I find it hard to see why that alone should prevent the resultant variant from infringing the original invention. It may entitle the infringer to a new patent, in the same way as the invention of a novel use for a patented invention can itself be patented, but like such a novel use I see no reason why the variant should not infringe the original patent.

I am not even sure if this holds true for Switzerland. The Supreme Court’s own landmark ruling ‘Urinalventil’ (4A_131/2016) marches to a different drummer, in my perception. In that later case, the replacing feature in the attacked embodiment was in fact patented by the EPO, with the patent in suit being explicitly acknowledged as closest prior art. The attacked embodiment had nevertheless been held to infringe the patent in suit under the DoE. See this Blog here for a detailed review of the ‘Urinalventil’ case.

Moreover, the second question in the FPC’s questionnaire in no way excludes inventive equivalents; see this Blog here. The headnote in O2014_002 reads as follows:

The assessment of accessibility is not to be confused with the assessment of inventiveness. Starting point for the assessment of accessibility is not the general state of the art, but the patent in suit. Therefore it is not to be assessed whether the replaced feature is inventive in view of the state of the art. It is rather to be assessed whether, starting from the teaching of the patent in suit, it is evident for the skilled person that the replaced feature has the same effect (r. 6.5.2.4).
(Clarification of the case law with respect to S2013_001, decision dated 21. März 2013)

iv)   Should one care (more) about the title?

There are multiple references to the title of the patent in particular in the reasons of the Supreme Court’s decision (p. 2, section A; ¶5.5.5; ¶5.5.6:

[…] Patent[s] […] dessen Gegenstand umschrieben ist als “Combination containing an antifolate and methylmalonic acid lowering agent” […];

In der Beschreibung ist – wie im Titel des Patents – allgemein von Antifolaten die Rede.

This emphasis on the title puzzles me. It is required by the EPC that the title of the invention must be contained in the request for grant form and that it shall clearly and concisely state the technical designation of the invention (R. 41(2) lit. b EPC), no doubt about it. However, the title is not part of the description (R. 42 EPC) which shall be used to interpret the claims (Art. 69(1) EPC) in accordance with the Protocol on Interpretation of Art. 69.

I am not aware of any relevant decision on equivalents that has put this much emphasis on the title. On a personal note, I couldn’t have cared less about the title by now. A negligence?

v)   Final thoughts

There were times (in particular in Germany after introduction of the third criterion (‘Gleichwertigkeit’)) when the DoE effectively was dead. In my perception, the pendulum now swings back and we see decisions more to the contrary. Over time, the ‘truth’ will be somewhere in between. Hopefully.

Exhausted from equivalents, I remain
Martin WILMING

SUMMARY

If you came here on a shortcut, you missed a lot. Anyway, I will assume this was your ‘delibarately chosen limitation’ of information. The decision holds:

  • Limitation of ‘antifolate’ to ‘pemetrexed disodium’ during prosecution did not constitute an abandonment of subject-matter.
  • A composition comprising pemetrexed diacid infringes a claim specifying pemetrexed disodium under the DoE. 
  • The case is remitted to the FPC to with the order to dismiss the suit with respect to the requested declaratory judgment of non-infringement for the diacid, and to also assess the two other salts that had initially been at stake in first instance proceedings.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Case No. 4A_208/2017 (Supreme Court) ¦ Decision of 20 October 2017 ¦ “Pemetrexed; O2015_004”

  1. Eli Lilly and Company
  2. Eli Lilly (Suisse) SA

./.

Actavis Switzerland AG

Panel of Judges:

  • Dr. Christina KISS
    • Dr. Kathrin KLETT
    • Dr. Fabienne HOHL
    • Dr. Martha NIQUILLE
    • Marie-Chantal MAY CANELLAS

Court Clerk:

  •  Dr. Matthias LEEMANN

Representative(s) of Appellant / Defendant:

Representative(s) of Respondent / Plaintiff:

DECISION IN FULL

Download (PDF, 205KB)

PATENT IN SUIT

Download (PDF, 878KB)

BE ON THE KNOW

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

The wording of a Swiss SPC does not (really) matter … (?)

Case No. S2017_006 ¦ Decision of 12 October 2017 ¦ “Gutheissung vorsorgliche Massnahme, ESZ Kombinationspräparat”

Note that Hepp Wenger Ryffel is involved in this matter on behalf of the defendant.

Infringement of a supplementary protection certificate (SPC) is at stake again. The FPC had granted ex parte interim injunctive relief; see this Blog here. Interim injunctive relief has now been confirmed.

The SPC concerns (emphasis added)

SD.-fumarat + T.

On the contrary, defendant’s attacked embodiment comprises SD.-phosphate and T.

The FPC held that this is still ‘the product’ in the sense of Art. 140d PatA, with reasons essentially as follows:

The codified definition of ‘product’ is ‘active ingredient or combinations of active ingredients’; Art. 140a(2) PatA. According to the Federal Council Dispatch (p. 729), this refers to the active ingredient or combination of active ingredients that is used in the medicament.

[Bei Erzeugnissen] handelt es sich […] nicht um das (Human- oder Tier-)Arzneimittel, so wie es als pharmazeutische Spezialität genehmigt wird, sondern um den Wirkstoff oder die Wirkstoffzusammensetzung, welche(r) in einem solchen Arzneimittel Anwendung findet.

IPI
IPI

The FPC holds that the term ‘product’ shall be construed consistently in the registration process and when it comes to assessment of the scope of protection. The FPC then refered to the Guidenlines on Examination of the IPI. The Guidelines hold that different salts or esters of an active ingredient are regarded as one and the same chemical substance / product, unless the specific salt or ester has an influence on the pharmacological effect (which would then need to be derivable from the patent).

Liegen für einen Wirkstoff mehrere Genehmigungen für jeweils unterschiedliche Salzformen oder Ester vor, so werden diese grundsätzlich als ein und dieselbe chemische Verbindung respektive als ein und dasselbe Erzeugnis betrachtet. Diese Salze bzw. Ester dienen der Handhabung bei der Herstellung, Verarbeitung oder Verabreichung (z.B. Verbesserung der Löslichkeit) oder Stabilisierung des Wirkstoffs. Ist beispielsweise eine Carbonsäure je separat als freie Säure, als Natrium- und Kaliumsalz zugelassen worden, so ist die früheste dieser drei Genehmigungen massgebend.

Hat jedoch die Salzform (bzw. das Gegenion) oder die Estergruppe einen Einfluss auf die pharmakologische Wirkung im Körper, handelt es sich um eine neue Erfindung. Die durch die spezielle Salz- oder Esterform veränderte Wirkung muss aus dem Patent hervorgehen.

The FPC thus concluded that a proper construction of the wording of the SPC in the case at hand is

T. plus SD.-Fumarat incl. all derivatives therof (i.e. in particular all other salts), provided that they have the same pharmacological effect and are protected by the basic patent

The FPC in particular noted that the specific wording of the SPC (‘fumarate’) is not a differentiation over the prior art, but rather is dictated by the wording of the underlying market authorisation. In the FPC’s assesement, it would not have been possible for the plaintiff to obtain a SPC that did not mention the fumarate. The wording of the SPC shall thus not limit the scope of protection, provided that the pharmacological effect of the ‘phosphate’ is the same (and the attacked embodiment is covered by the basic patent).

Die spezifische Formulierung des ESZ ist damit keine Abgrenzung vom Stand der Technik durch die Schutzrechtsinhaberin, sondern vielmehr bestimmt durch den Wortlaut der arzneimittelrechtlichen Zulassung. Damit ist glaubhaft, dass die Klägerin gar kein Schutzzertifikat gestützt auf die Zulassung […] hätte erhalten können, bei welchem […] und nicht […] Fumarat genannt wird. Eine Beschränkung des patentrechtlichen Schutzbereichs kann daraus deshalb auch nicht abgeleitet werden, vorausgesetzt dass, wie hier unbestritten, die gleiche pharmakologische Wirkung beim anderen Salz als Fumarat gegeben ist.

Swissmedic
Swissmedic

The FPC then took the fact that the attacked embodiment had been registered by Swissmedic essentially based on the plaintiff’s prior market authorisation as prima facie evidence of the same pharmacological effect of the fumarate and the phosphate.

It was beyond dispute that the attacked embodiment was covered by the basic patent, and that the attacked embodiment had a market authorisation by Swissmedic. Thus, the FPC held that all elements of an infringement of the SPC had been fulfilled.

The decision is not yet final.

UPDATE 01 December 2017:

The decision has not been appealed.

Reported by Martin WILMING

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Case No. S2017_006 ¦ Decision of 12 October 2017 ¦ “Gutheissung vorsorgliche Massnahme, ESZ Kombinationspräparat”

n/a  ./.  n/a

Panel of Judges:

  • Dr. Dieter BRÄNDLE
  • Dr. Tobias BREMI
  • Marco ZARDI

Judge-rapporteur:

  • Dr. Tobias BREMI

Court Clerk:

  • Susanne ANDERHALDEN

Representative(s) of Plaintiff:

  • Dr. Michael RITSCHER (MLL)
  • Dr. Simon HOLZER (MLL)
  • Dr. Kilian SCHÄRLI (MLL)

Representative(s) of Defendant:

DECISION IN FULL

Download (PDF, 129KB)

BE ON THE KNOW

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

Does the wording of an SPC matter?

Case No. S2107_006 ¦ Hearing of 9 October 2017

Note that Hepp Wenger Ryffel AG is involved in this matter on behalf of the defendant.

The supplementary protection certificate C00915894 is at stake; see the official court information about the hearing. The basic patent is EP 0 915 894 B1; see EPO Register and Swissreg.

It’s not the first time that the parties litigate about this SPC. Nullity proceedings are co-pending; see this Blog here and here. A major issue at stake now is the alleged infringement of the SPC. The FPC had granted ex parte interim injunctive relief; see this Blog here. Note, however, that the SPC concerns (emphasis added):

tenofovir disoproxilfumarat + emtricitabin

Defendant’s attacked embodiment instead comprises tenofovir disoproxil phosphate.

Now, is that still ‘the product’ in the sense of Art. 140d PatA?

Plaintiff essentially argues that an SPC would always extend to all salts of (a component of) a product, irrespective of its wording. On the contrary, defendant argues that this is a misunderstanding of the ‘Farmitalia’ decision of the ECJ (C-392/97): In that case, the market authorisation related to a specific salt, but the ECJ had allowed the registration of an SPC also for salts and esters. It had been held in ¶27 that

[…] where an active ingredient in the form of a salt is referred to in the marketing authorisation concerned and is protected by a basic patent in force, the certificate is capable of covering the active ingredient as such and also its various derived forms such as salts and esters, as medicinal products, in so far as they are covered by the protection of the basic patent.

The ECJ’s judgment only concerned the requirements for grant of an SPC, but not the scope of protection. The FPC will now have to decide on the scope of an SPC directed to a combination product wherein a first component is identified as a specifically named salt (fumarate) which is not used in the attacked product (using a phosphate instead); and wherein the second component (emtricitabin) is not mentioned at all in the basic patent.

The President noted that no expert opinion of the judge-rapporteur will be established. The parties did not enter into settlement discussions.

Reported by Martin WILMING

Header image reproduced with kind permission and copyright of the Swiss Federal Administrative Court (St. Gallen) where the hearings of the FPC take place.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Case No. O2107_001 ¦ Hearing of 9 October 2017

Gilead Sciences Inc. ./. Mepha Pharma AG

Panel of Judges:

  • Dr. Dieter BRÄNDLE
  • Dr. Tobias BREMI
  • Marco ZARDI

Court Clerk:

  • Susanne ANDERHALDEN

Representative(s) of Plaintiff:

  • Dr. Simon HOLZER (MLL)
  • Dr. Kilian SCHÄRLI (MLL)
  • Dr. Andreas SCHÖLLHORN (LS Partner), assisting in patent matters

Representative(s) of Defendant:

THE BASIC PATENT

Download (PDF, 1.75MB)

COURT INFORMATION ABOUT THE HEARING

Download (PDF, 20KB)

BE ON THE KNOW

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

Living in a box … no more

Case No. 4A_18/2017 (Supreme Court)] ¦ Decision of 10 July 2017 ¦ ‘HIT Box’

This decision of the Supreme Court of Switzerland concerns an appeal against a decision of the Princely High Court of Liechtenstein in a patent infringement case.

This setup demands for some explanations right from the outset.

Switzerland and the Principality of Liechtenstein form a unitary territory of protection; see the Bilateral Protection Act (‘Patentschutzvertrag‘, an English translation is available here). The Princely High Court is designated as the competent court in civil cases regarding patent matters in Liechtenstein. An appeal to the Swiss Supreme Court is possible with regard to issues of substantive law (BGE 127 III 461, r 3d); the Supreme Court Act applies. On the other hand, issues of international private law (BGE 127 III 461, r 4b) and procedural law of the Principality of Liechtenstein (4A_681/2012 and 4A_683/2012) are not to be dealt with by the Swiss Supreme Court. 

All this may well add a further layer of procedural complexity on top of the inherent complexity of any patent litigation.

But at least the subject-matter at stake appears to be rather straight-forward: It’s all about a plastic container with a lid and snap closure, illustrated as follows:

The snap-mechanism can be released by pushing the nose (15) inwards and pulling the gripping member (9) outwards, illustrated by forces K3 and K2, respectively, in Fig. 4 below. The lid can then be lifted easily with force K1. However, if only the lid is lifted (force K1′) without prior release of the snap-mechanism by forces K2 and K3, the nose 15 slides to the exterior into a safety position; see Fig. 6 below.

The patent EP 0 767 106 B1 (Georg Utz Holding AG; see Swissreg and EPO Register for further bibliographic details) had been granted in 1999 with a single independent claim as follows:

A plastic Container with a lower part (1) and a lid (2) as well as at least one snapping mechanism (9-18) for attaching the lid (2) to the lower part (1), wherein the snapping mechanism comprises a first and a second member (12-15; 9, 11, 17, 18), wherein the members are snapped into each other in a closed position and resist against an opening of the lid (2) by a nose (15) of the first member abutting against a stopping surface (18) of the second member, wherein for opening the lid (2) the members can be brought into an opened position by urging the nose (15) in a first direction from the stopping surface (18) by elastic deformation of at least one of the members, and wherein by exertion of a sufficient opening force (K1′) on the lid, the nose (15) can be urged from the stopping surface (18) in a different second direction and the members can be brought from the closed position into a safety position, where they form a connection positively acting against the opening force, characterised in that an opening (11) is arranged in an edge region of the lid (2), the lower edge of which opening forms the stopping surface (18), and that the nose (15) is connected to the lower part (1).

The complaint (apparently against members of the Hilti group of companies) had been filed back in September 2012. The Princely High Court appointed a court expert to assess validity and infringement of the patent: Dr. Tobias Bremi, who is also the second ordinary judge of the Swiss Federal Patent Court. The expert held that the attacked embodiment is literally covered by claim 1 of the patent, but that the patent is invalid for lack of novelty. However, it may be concluded from the decision that the court-appointed expert somehow indicated that the subject-matter of dependent claim 10 would be valid and infringed.

Later, the patent has been limited in central EPO proceedings by addition of the following feature to claim 1:

the upper border area (3) of the lower part (1) is reinforced by a double wall

No, it’s not what you might expect: The additional feature is not the subject-matter of former claim 10, it rather has been taken from the description. The limited patent has been republished as EP 0 767 106 B3.

The expert accordingly delivered a second opinion on the limited patent in December 2015: The attacked embodiment was still covered by amended claim 1, but the claim was still not novel over the same prior art document. Even worse, the amendment was held to be in violation of Art. 123(2) EPC, i.e. that the amended claim contained subject-matter which extended beyond the content of the application as filed by way of an intermediate generalisation. 

The Princely High Court thus dismissed the complaint with decision of 24 November 2016, ie well after the patent had finally lapsed on 30 September 2016. On appeal to the Swiss Supreme Court the plaintiffs essentially requested that the decision of the Princely High Court be set aside and that the case be remanded to the Princely High Court for reappraisal. The plaintiffs / appellants apparently argued that the amendment to claim 1 was not an unallowable intermediate generalisation. Moreover, it was argued that claim 10 as such was valid and infringed.

In first place, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs / appellants had no legitimate interest anymore in injunctive relief since the patent had meanwhile lapsed. The appeal has not been considered to this extent.

Second, the Supreme Court dealt with the aspect of information and accounting. The Supreme Court would have been competent to decide on the merits; Art. 107(2) SCA and Annex I to the Bilateral Protection Act (‘Patentschutzvertrag’) which refers to the Swiss Code of Obligations. However, only remandment to the Princely High Court had been requested. The Supreme Court has thus not considered the appeal to this extent, either.

Finally, the Supreme Court held that partial validity of dependent claim 10 of the patent (as originally granted) had not been at stake in proceedings before the Princely High Court, and any arguments in this respect were new and inadmissible. The Supreme Court noted that the plaintiffs / appellants did not object to the finding of the lower court that claim 1 was not novel, neither in the initially granted form (EP’106 B1) nor in the subsequently limited form (EP’106 B3). However, according to the Supreme Court, already this finding justifies the decision as such.

At the face of it, the Supreme Court decision appears to be very straight-forward. But the devil may well be in the unrevealed details. E.g., it would be interesting to learn more about the reasons for the limitation, and what had actually been argued with respect to claim 10.

What is not readily clear to me is how the Supreme Court dealt with the plaintiff’s auxiliary request that had been on file before the Princely High Court. The patentee had eventualiter invoked the patent only to a limited extent, and this limitation actually reflected the additional features of dependent claims 9 and claim 10 (note that claim 10 is dependent on claim 9):

[9. …] in the closed position the nose extends from an inner side into the opening;
[10. …] in the closed position an outer side of the nose is substantially flush with an outer side of the edge region of the lid.

In my perception, validity of the combination of claims 1, 9 and 10 must have been at stake before the Princely High Court, contrary to what the Supreme Court decision suggests. When a patent is invoked only to a limited extent, validity should also be assessed to that extent; see this Blog here.

I am still trying to get a hand on the decision of the Princely High Court, to gain further insight …

Reported by Martin WILMING

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Case No. 4A_18/2017 (Supreme Court)] ¦ Decision of 10 July 2017 ¦ ‘HIT Box’

  1. A. AG
  2. B. AG
  3. [Utz group of companies]

./.

  1. C. AG (LI)
  2. D. GmbH (DE)
  3. E. mbH (DE)
  4. [Hilti group of companies]

Judge(s):

  • Dr. Christina KISS
  • Dr. Kathrin KLETT
  • Dr. Fabienne HOHL

Court Clerk:

  • Dr. Matthias LEEMANN

Representative(s) of Plaintiff(s) / Appellant(s):

Representative(s) of Defendant(s):

  • Dr. Michael RITSCHER (MLL)

DECISION IN FULL

Download (PDF, 2.34MB)

PATENT AS GRANTED (B1)

Download (PDF, 387KB)

LIMITED PATENT (B3)

Download (PDF, 183KB)

BE ON THE KNOW

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

Combining a counterclaim with a main claim against a party which hasn’t sued you?

Case No. O2016_016 ¦ Decision of 16 May 2017 ¦ “Einbezug zusätzlicher Parteien mit Widerklage”

HEADNOTE

Art. 64 CPC; Fixation of the parties to the proceedings.

Litispendence results in a fixation of the parties to the proceedings. Further parties cannot be included into pending proceedings – except for an admissible substitution of a party (Art. 83 CPC) or for other reasons provided by law.

The setup of this case is straightforward: A had sued B for nullity of the patent in suit. B lodged a counterclaim for infringement against A with his reply.

In the very same proceedings, B also sued X AG and Y GmbH for infringement. B argued that this voluntary joinder was admissible in view of Art. 71 CPC: the duties of all these parties result from similar circumstances, ie cooperation with respect to the alleged infringement of the patent in suit.

However, the President held that the parties are fixed upon litispendence; Art. 62 and Art. 64 CPC. Exceptions would only be the admissible substitution of a party (Art. 83 CPC) or other reasons provided by law — which have not been applicable here. A voluntary joinder under Art. 71 CPC would have been possible, but only in separate proceedings.

The President thus dismissed the cases against X AG and Y GmbH for lack of a procedural requirement; Art. 59(1) CPCArt. 23(1) lit. a PatCA.

Court fees of CHF 10’000,– have been imposed on B. No party compensation has been awarded: There was no need to even invite X AG and Y GmbH to file reply.

Reported by Martin WILMING

P.S.:
Admittedly, I am frustrated that I have no clue about the parties this time …

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Case No. O2016_016 ¦ Decision of 16 May 2017 ¦ “Einbezug zusätzlicher Parteien mit Widerklage”

A AG
(Nullity claimant; defendant in countersuit re infringement)

X AG
(Defendant re infringement)

Y GmbH
(Defendant re infringement)

./.

B
(Nullity defendant; counter-claimant re infringement)

Composition of the Board of the FPC:

  • Dr. Dieter BRÄNDLE

Court Clerk:

  • Esther SCHEITLIN

Representative(s) of A AG:

Representative(s) of B:

  • Dr. Simon HOLZER (MLL)
  • Dr. Mark SCHWEIZER (MLL)
  • Dr. Dirk BÜHLER (Maiwald), assisting in patent matters
  • Dr. Andreas LEDL (Maiwald), assisting in patent matters

DECISION IN FULL

Download (PDF, 111KB)

BE ON THE KNOW

You liked this? And you would like to be notified of new posts? Here you go.