Roses are red; violets are blue — It’s all obvious! Well, is that true?

Reading time: 5 minutes

Case Nos. O2016_010, O2016_011 | Hearing of 20 March 2019

Twice upon a time …

I have attended the main hearings in both these nullity cases, i.e. O2016_010 relating to EP 2 347 250 B1 (see EPO Register and Swissreg ) and O2016_011 relating to EP 2 352 018 B1 (see EPO Register and Swissreg). Note that EP’018 is based on a divisional application of EP’250.

The inventions are all about the capacitive testing of yarns or fabric, wherein the dielectric property of a capacitor arrangement is determined.

Patentability

It became clear from the pleadings that the defendant’s main request in both cases was that the patent be maintained in amended form only. In my understanding, the expert-opinion of the judge-rapporteur had held that the main request in O2016_010 / EP’250 was allowable, but not in O2016_011EP’018.

Novelty has not been an issue anymore, in both cases. Only obviousness, undue extension of subject-matter (interim generalisation) and clarity (of the additional feature) have been discussed. D2 (US 4,843,879; referred to in EP’250, ¶[0007]) was apparently agreed to be the closest prior art, and was combined in the assessment of obviousness with either D4 or D11 — both of which have unfortunately not been identified.

For me as a chemist, the highlight of the day was the plaintiff’s emotional release:

That’s not chemistry here; it’s physics!

The formulation of the ‘objective technical problem’ was quite a big deal in the hearing. This is what EP’250 says in ¶[0009] (emphasis added):

It is therefore the aim of the present invention to provide a method for the symmetry adjustment of a device for the capacitive examination of a moving elongated textile test sample which does not have the above disadvantages. The device should be simple, fast, cost-effective and, in particular, automatically adjustable.

Flower power, with roses in particular

Now, can automation be considered as the ‘objective technical problem’? In the plaintiff’s view, the ‘in particular’ is an emphasis of the aim of automation. The defendant disagreed: Automation was an add-on, and the other advantages could well be realised without automation. On the funny side, the following example has been used:

She likes flowers, in particular roses.

Now, imagine that the rose-loving woman visits a florist. Which flowers will she recognise first, amidst all the other flowers? The roses, of course!

Costs

Compensation of the ‘necessary expenses’ for the assisting patent attorney pursuant to Art. 3 lit. a and Art. 9(2) CostR-PatC was yet another point of discussion. The plaintiff requested reimbursement of about kCHF 45 for each case and argued, that the defendant triggered the additional costs because the amended claims had only been filed with the rejoinder which then had effectively restarted the whole discussion. I did not get the value in dispute, but the presiding judge indicated that kCHF 45 is about twice as much as the amount that would be awarded for legal respresentation, i.e. ‘according to the tariff’ that is based on the value in dispute.

Now, why is that important?

Since O2012_043, the FPC’s practice is that, as a rule, the ‘necessary expenses’ for the patent attorney may well be within the same order of magnitude of the costs for legal representation. But what about nullity cases? A patent attorney could do that on his/her own, without any legal representative; Art. 29(1) PatCA. Compensation would then be awarded according to the tariff for legal representatives; Art. 9(2) CostR-PatC.

The defendant questioned whether costs incurred for the assisting patent attorney are ‘necessary expenses’ at all, on top of the costs for legal representation according to the tariff, if he/she could have done the whole case on his own.

Use of the technical infrastructure in the court room

It is quite hard for the public to follow the arguments when the representatives just argue with acronyms and references. It’s sometimes frustrating, but I got used to it. But still, one of the basic ideas of a public hearing is to give the public the opportunity to follow the proceedings, isn’t it? But how would you even get a glimpse of what is really at stake when the parties only refer to ‘EP’111’ or ‘D1’ or ‘feature 1da’. That’s not information — it’s just noise.

I was very happy that the recent hearing in case S2018_006 was different (see this Blog here): Whenever someone referred to a specific document, the President put the same on the screen for it to be easily recognisable by the whole audience and the judges; projector and screen are fixedly installed in the ceiling anyway (see yellow arrow in the image below). Much appreciated!

Let there be information …

But that’s not only great for the audience; I strongly feel that it is also beneficial for representatives when arguing their case. When referring to a certain paragraph in a specific document in your pleadings, or a technical drawing, you always want to make sure that all the judges are on the same page, right? But how would you know that, with the judges sitting on a podium that even has an elevated front side that makes sure that nobody reveals a hand up there, behind the monitors. Yes, there are fixedly installed monitors (green arrows in the above image).

Now, did they all pick up the document that you are upon to discuss? You never know. So, why not actually use the monitors that each judge has in front of him/her, and the projector/screen for the audience, to make sure that everybody sees what you want to be seen? I could not think of any more powerful way to focus the discussion and thoughts on a specific argument.

Unfortunately, it didn’t work out that way in this hearing even though the defendant suggested it. I hope this was for technical reasons only, and does not indicate a general change of practice again.

Reported by Martin WILMING

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Case Nos. O2016_010, O2016_011 | Hearing of 20 March 2019

Gebr. Loepfe AG
./.
Uster Technologies AG

Panel of Judges:

  • Frank SCHNYDER
  • Dr. Tobias BREMI
  • Christoph MÜLLER

Judge-rapporteur:

  • n/a

Court Clerk:

  • Susanne ANDERHALDEN

Representative(s) of Plaintiff:

  • Dr. Simon HOLZER (MLL)
  • Dr. Kurt SUTTER (Blum), assisting in patent matters

Representative(s) of Defendant:

  • Dr. Andri HESS (Homburger)
  • Dr. Pavel PLISKA (inhouse)

O2016_010

Official announcement:

Fullscreen view (new tab)

Patent in suit:

Fullscreen view (new tab)

O2016_011

Official announcement:

Fullscreen view (new tab)

Patent in suit:

Fullscreen view (new tab)

SOME LIVE NOTES


BE ON THE KNOW

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

Paying annuities may have unexpected consequences …

Case No. O2018_018 ¦ Order (excerpt) of 4 January 2019 ¦ ‘Klageüberfall’

Reading time: 3 minutes
HEADNOTE

Art. 106(1), 107(1) lit. e CPC:

Allocation of costs.

The patentee who deletes their patent from the patent register after the filing of a nullity action is liable to pay the procedural costs even if they have not been forewarned before the filing of the action.

The hn highlights in no uncertain terms the risk associated with maintaining patents of doubtful validity in Switzerland: Even in case of a nullity action out of the blue, and even if the patent is then withdrawn immediately, the patentee / defendant still has to bear the procedural costs.

Frankly, this does not come as a complete surprise. The tendency has already been clear since O2015_010, decision of 5 January 2016. The present order again confirms that Swiss law (unlike Germany, cf. § 93 DE-ZPO) does not provide for an obligation to issue a prior warning letter. With reference to the practice of the cantonal court of Zug (A3 2010 58, ‘Geburtsgel’), the order holds that clapping all costs on the defendant is justified if the defendant had

[…] given the impression by his pre-litigation conduct that he had not had the patent cancelled on mere warning.

Noteworthy, the present order holds that this conclusion can already be drawn from the mere existence of a formally valid patent. This is because the patent is cancelled if the renewal fees due are not paid on time (Art. 15(1) lit. b PatA). It would be unreasonable to assume that the patentee would pay the annuities on time but cancel the patent on first demand.

And, in fact, the patentee in the present matter did not respond immediately to the (informal) notification of the action by cancelling the patent, but rather offered the plaintiff a licence. This suggests that even in the case of a pre-litigation request, the patent would not have been cancelled immediately.

Feller logo

The order has been published in highly truncated form only. But still, I am reasonably sure about the patent at stake. Searches in Swissreg give only a single perfect fit, i.e. EP(CH) 1 204 164 B1 of Feller AG; see Swissreg. Annuities had been validly paid until 30 November 2018, but the patent had been withdrawn shortly before that date, with letter of 6 November 2018 (published in Swissreg on 8 November 2018).

The invention of EP’164 apparently is all about a screwless connecting terminal for electrical conductors, with more secure releasability of the conductors. Claim 1 reads as follows:

Device (1) with screwless terminals for connecting electrical conductors, with at least one spring comprising an elastic terminal arm (7) and a brace (2) which encloses it, where a contact tongue (8) of the terminal arm (7) cooperates with a retaining part (5) of the brace (2) so as to maintain a conductor introduced between the contact tongue (8) and the retaining part (5), where the brace (2) leaves the contact tongue (8) at least partially accessible on both sides of the retaining part (5), so that it can be acted upon from outside the brace (2) on both sides of the retaining part (5), characterized in that the brace (2) comprises a base (3) and a lateral wall (4) the upper part of which is bent so as to form the retaining part (5) in such a way that this retaining part (5) is only connected through its longer side with the lateral wall (4), and that the latter comprises at least one recess (11) in the vicinity of the extremity of the contact tongue (8).

All this is more readily understandable with Fig. 1 of EP’164 at hand:

EP 1 204 164 B1, Fig. 1

Unfortunately, I failed miserably to track the plaintiff of this case. If someone out there does know more, please let me know.

Reported by Martin WILMING

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Case No. O2018_018 ¦ Order (excerpt) of 4 January 2019 ¦ ‘Klageüberfall’

n/a
./.
Feller AG

ORDER (EXCERPT)

Fullscreen view (new tab)

EP 1 204 164 B1

Fullscreen view (new tab)

BE ON THE KNOW

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

Exhaustive discussion through all instances: The list of grounds for nullity is exhaustive.

Case No. 4A_415/2018 (Supreme Court) ¦ Decision of 7 December 2018, on appeal against O2017_016 (FPC) ¦ Decision of 12 June 2018

Reading time: 5 minutes

The setup of this case is pretty simple:

Salmon Pharma as the defendant in SPC infringement proceedings neither disputed validity of the basic patent EP 0 716 606 B1 of Genzyme Corporation, nor that the subject-matter of the SPC C00716606/01 is actually covered by the basic patent or that the attacked embodiment (sevelamer carbonate) is covered by the SPC. Rather, the defendant (only) alleged that the SPC was invalid because the IPI wrongfully allowed re-establishment of rights (Art. 47 PatA) with respect to the time limit for filing the SPC application under Art. 140f PatA.

Following-up on a decision granting interim injunctive relief (see the detailed report on this Blog here), the FPC had confirmed with a decision in main proceedings that the list of grounds for nullity of an SPC as set forth in Art. 140k PatA is exhaustive; the allegedly wrongful reinstatement was thus held to be no valid ground of nullity (see this Blog here).

The question as to whether the lists of grounds for nullity in Art. 26 and Art. 140k PatA are exhaustive had indeed not yet been explicitly decided by the Supreme Court before. However, the present judgment refers to an indication in 4A_52/2008, ¶2.2, according to which the grounds for invalidity for the certificate are listed in Art. 140k PatA. Furthermore, in application of the Patent Act of 1888, the Federal Supreme Court had already held that the grounds for invalidity of patents were exhaustively listed therein (28 II 309, ¶5). I just love to read such old decisions. Amazingly straight to the point; and the type face is so stylish:

Decision 28 II 309 of 2 May 1902 (snapshot)

Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court takes the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) on Art. 15 of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 (or Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92) into account, in view of the legislator’s explicit intent to bring the Swiss rules into line with European law.

However, the Supreme Court could not infer anything from the ECJ’s case-law in support of Salmon’s position. Rather, the Supreme Court confirms the FPC’s reasoning: The ECJ only affirmed the nullity of certificates due to the non-observance of standards which are not explicitly mentioned in Art. 15 of Regulation No 1768/92 by referring to Art. 15 as interpreted in view of Art. 3.

For example, in C-127/00 — Hässle ./. Ratiopharm, the ECJ held that failure to comply with the transitional regime of Art. 19 of Regulation No 1768/92 may result in the certificate being invalid. The requirement under Art. 19 is to be understood as an implicit substantive requirement additional to the conditions laid down in Art. 3 of the Regulation. A certificate which was granted even though an initial marketing authorisation had already been granted before the date laid down in Article 19 of the Regulation is therefore null and void; ¶¶84-92).

Likewise, in C-195/09 — Synthon ./. Merz Pharma, the ECJ held that Art. 3 of Regulation No 1768/92 necessarily referred to a product falling within the scope of that regulation within the meaning of Art. 2 thereof. A certificate granted for a product falling outside the material scope of the Regulation should be considered null and void; ¶56.

It cannot be inferred from these judgments that the list of grounds for nullity in accordance with Art. 15 of the Regulation is not to be understood as exhaustive. On the contrary, the ECJ stated that it could not be inferred from either the wording or the history of Art. 15 of the Regulation that the list of grounds for nullity of the certificate referred to therein was not exhaustive (Synthon, ¶55; Hässle, ¶¶90-91).

The Supreme Court thus held that the lists of grounds for invalidity of both Art. 26 and Art. 140k PatA cannot be supplemented. Consequently, in the context of a patent nullity action or a nullity action relating to an SPC, only the grounds provided for in these provisions may be invoked. The Supreme Court notes in passing that legal certainty demands for this, too.

Angesichts dessen, dass es sich bei der Nichtigkeit eines Patents bzw. Zertifikats um eine schwerwiegende Folge handelt, entspricht dies dem Gebot der Rechtssicherheit.

Next, the Supreme Court assessed whether non-compliance with the deadline for filing the request pursuant to Art. 140f PatA or wrongful reinstatement pursuant to Art. 47 PatA, could be subsumed under a ground for invalidity pursuant to Art. 140k PatA. However, this is neither apparent nor does it result from the relevant case-law of the ECJ.

Finally, the Supreme Court notes that SPCs and patents are granted by order of the IGE (144 III 285, ¶3.2). Nullity under Art. 26 and Art. 140k PatA is not to be mixed up with the administrative contestability or nullity of the dispositions of the IPI on which the grant of a patent or SPC is based. In other words, the fact that the catalogues of grounds for invalidity under the PatA are exhaustive does not mean that these dispositions cannot be contestable or void, which must be assessed according to general principles of administrative law.

Dass die Kataloge der patentrechtlichen Nichtigkeitsgründe abschliessend sind, bedeutet […] nicht, dass diese Verfügungen nicht anfechtbar bzw. nichtig sein können, was nach allgemeinen verwaltungsrechtlichen Grundsätzen zu beurteilen ist.

Interestingly, the Supreme Court explicitly left the question open whether the decision of grant of the SPC (or the earlier decision of 4 April 2005 concerning reinstatement) could have been challenged by the appellant, as the FPC had assumed: Any relevant time limit had expired since long, anyway. On the other hand, the nullity of a decision must be observed by all authorities applying the law at all times (137 I 273, ¶3.1; 133 II 366, ¶¶3.1-3.2; 132 II 342, ¶2.1; 129 I 361, ¶2; each with further references to case-law).

Incorrect administrative acts are usually not null and void, but only contestable; and they become legally effective when not challenged. Invalidity, i.e. absolute ineffectiveness, of an order is only accepted if it is afflicted with a profound and substantial defect, if this serious defect is obvious or at least easily recognisable and if the legal certainty is not seriously jeopardised by the acceptance of invalidity. Deficiencies in content only rarely result in the nullity of an order, in exceptional cases; this requires an extraordinarily serious deficiency. The main grounds for invalidity are the functional and factual lack of competence of an authority and serious procedural irregularities (such as the fact that the person concerned did not have the opportunity to participate in the proceedings). If an order is not legally binding in this sense, any authority dealing with the matter must comply with it at all times and ex officio (see, inter alia, 138_II_501, ¶3.1; 137 I 273, ¶3.1; 136_II_489, ¶3.3).

Salmon had argued that reinstatement was granted ‘arbitrarily and contrary to the clear and decades-long practice’ of the IPI. Again, the Supreme Court left undecided whether the IPI indeed wrongly allowed reinstatement because the alleged misjudgment could not be a defect that leads to the nullity of the decision. In particular, the Supreme Court held that any such deficiency would be neither obvious nor easily recognisable: By definition, reinstatement is a remedy when something went wrong, i.e. in the event that a time limit prescribed by the law was not observed.

Finally, in simple terms, the Supreme Court notes: The IPI had come to the conclusion that the conditions for reinstatement pursuant to Art. 47 PatA were met. The appellant may not share this view, but the administrative act is still not null and void.

Das IGE ist zum Schluss gekommen, dass die Voraussetzungen für die Wiedereinsetzung gemäss Art. 47 PatG gegeben waren. Die Beschwerdeführerin mag diese Einschätzung nicht teilen; ein nichtiger Verwaltungsakt liegt jedoch nicht vor.

Reported by Martin WILMING

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Case No. 4A_415/2018 (Supreme Court) ¦ Decision of 7 December 2018, on appeal against O2017_016 (FPC) ¦ Decision of 12 June 2018

Salmon Pharma GmbH

./.

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

Panel of Judges:

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

Court Clerk:

  •  Nicolas CURCHOD

Representative(s) of Salmon Pharma:

  • Dr. Robert BRINER (CMS)

Representative(s) of Genzyme, Sanofi-Aventis:

SUPREME COURT DECISION

On appeal against decision O2017_016 of 12 June 2018:
4A_415/2018 7 December 2018
Fullscreen view (new tab)

SECOND FPC DECISION

Main proceedings, following up on decision S2016_009 of 4 July 2017:
O2017_016 12 June 2018
Fullscreen view (new tab)

FIRST FPC DECISION

Summary proceedings:
S2016_009 4 July 2017
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.

Supreme Court confirms FPC’s decision O2015_008 — Omega’s appeal dismissed

Case No. 4A_282/2018 ¦ Decision of 4 October 2018 (Supreme Court) on appeal against O2015_008 ¦ Decision of 14 March 2018 (FPC)¦ ‘Balancier de montre’

Reading time: 4 minutes

As to the background of this matter, please see the report about the main hearing on this Blog here and the discussion of the first instance decision of the FPC on this Blog here.

In brief, Omega had alleged infringement of its EP 1 837 719 B1; see the EPO Register and Swissreg for further bibliographic details of the patent in suit. With decision of 14 March 2018, the FPC had rejected Omega’s claim for infringement while Tudor’s / Detech’s counterclaim for invalidity had been allowed; EP(CH) 1 837 719 B1 had been declared invalid.

The Supreme Court now dismissed Omega’s appeal, i.e. confirmed the FPC’s decision. EP(CH) 1 837 719 B1 is thus finally declared invalid.

The issues dealt with by the Supreme Court in the decision, in brief:

  1. Age of a prior art document 

On appeal, Omega has argued that the FPC took an unrealistic piece of prior art into account in the assessment of inventive step. Indeed, the FPC had considered a document that was published already about a century ago, i.e. US 759,914. In view of the evolution of watchmaking since then, Omega considered it unrealistic that such a document was actually considered as a starting point in the assessment of inventive step. Consequently, Omega alleged a violation of Art. 56 EPC.

The Supreme Court did not buy this argument. It is held in no uncertain terms that everything that had been made publicly available — including old documents — forms part of the prior art. One cannot exclude a document from consideration in the assessment of inventive step just because of its age; see ¶3.1.3.

Écarter un document de ceux que consulterait l’homme de métier en raison de son ancienneté reviendrait à priver les brevets ayant dépasé un certain âge de toute valeur dans le cadre de l’analyse de l’effet invenif. Un telle pratique ne saurait être déduite de l’art. 65 CBE.

Reference to some case-law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO did not help either: The mere age of a document has not been decisive in T 479/00, T 366/89, T 1000/92 and T 334/92. The Supreme Court notes that the obsolescence or outdatedness of a technology had been the key issue in these decisions, which excluded the respective documents from consideration by the skilled person. Apparently, no such case had been established by the appellant in the present matter.

  1. Incompatibility of technical teachings

The balance wheel of US 759,914 has inertia blocks that must have been placed from the inside, as claimed by the patent in suit; see the screw head on the inner side of the felloe in the figures below.

But what is still missing here is the stud (‘plot’) according according to the patent in suit. Omega argued that the skilled person would not have added studs to the balance of US 759,914 in view of the risk to impair the automatic adjustment of its temperature dependent moment of inertia, which is the sole purpose of this invention. However, the Supreme Court holds that this is not in agreement with the fact findings of the FPC, and thus did not consider this argument any further.

  1. Choice of the closest prior art

The FPC had not explicitly motivated its choice of US 759,914 as the closest prior art in the assessment of inventive step in accordance with the problem-and-solution approach.

Kind reminder …

And the Supreme Court indeed acknowledges that it would have been desirable if it had done so.

Ainsi, il eût été souhaitable que la juridiction précédente détaille la première étape de l’approche problème-solution comme elle l’a fait pour les autres étapes de son examen.

But still, in view of the FPC’s detailed discussion of how the skilled person had arrived at the invention starting from US 759,914 without inventive merit, it became sufficiently clear how close both inventions actually are, and why US’914 thus is a reasonably chosen closest prior art.

  1. Late filed auxiliary requests / claim limitations

Omega had filed yet another, even more limited auxiliary request (AR3) with the response to the expert opinion of the judge-rapporteur. The FPC had not admitted this request into the proceedings anymore, with reference to O2015_012.

Omega had challenged this on appeal. But while this appeal has been pending, the Supreme Court ruled on the appeal against O2015_012 — and backed the practice of the FPC in this respect; decision 4A_543/2017 of 08 May 2018, see this Blog here. Accordingly, Omega did not succeed with this argument, either.

In sum, Omega’s appeal was dismissed and EP(CH) 1 837 719 B1 is now finally declared invalid.

Reported by Martin WILMING

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Case No. 4A_282/2018 ¦ Decision of 4 October 2018 (Supreme Court) on appeal against O2015_008 ¦ Decision of 14 March 2018 (FPC) ¦ ‘Balancier de montre’

Omega S.A.

./.

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

Panel of Judges:

  • Dr. Christina KISS
    • Dr. Kathrin KLETT
    • Marie-Chantal MAY CANELLAS

Court Clerk:

  •  Nicolas CURCHOD

Representative(s) of appellant / plaintiff:

Representative(s) of defendants / respondents:

SUPREME COURT DECISION 

Fullscreen view (new tab)

FPC 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.

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.

Supreme Court confirms: No late amendments to an auxiliary request

Supreme Court
Case No. 4A_543/2017 | Decision of 08 May 2018 | ‘Appeal against decision O2015_012 of 29 August 2017

As to the background of this decision, I suggest to first have a look at the review of the first instance judgment on this Blog here.

AZ’s Faslodex

In (very) brief, AstraZeneca’s EP(CH) 1 250 138 B2 had been revoked for lack of inventive step over Howell in view of McLeskey. At the main hearing, AZ had further limited its third auxiliary request with an additional feature (marked-up below) as follows:

Use of fulvestrant in the preparation of a pharmaceutical formulation for the treatment of breast cancer by intra-muscular administration to human patients, […] wherein […] the formulation is adapted for attaining a therapeutically significant blood plasma fulvestrant concentration of at least 8.5 ng ml-1 for at least two weeks.

AZ had argued that this further limitation was a partial acknowledgment of the complaint which is possible at any stage of the proceedings; Art. 241 CPC. The FPC did not agree.  The further limitation only concerned an auxiliary request, i.e. it only came into play when the court had already decided on the main request, i.e. denial of the complaint without any amendments to the claims. At that stage, there is no room anymore for a partial acknowledgment of the complaint. The FPC held that it was faced with new facts to be considered as an auxiliary measure. This is possible in general, but only within the time limits for submission of novae; Art. 229 CPC. Consequently, the FPC had not admitted the newly drafted auxiliary request into the proceedings.

On appeal, AZ requested that the decision be set aside and the patent maintained on the basis of the amended third auxiliary request.

The Supreme Court did not agree, either. Whether or not an additional feature in a claim is an allowable limitation is not just a question of law. It rather requires a factual assessment of whether (or not) the application as filed provides sufficient basis for the amendment. This assessment had not been made in first instance proceedings. The Supreme Court further notes that even further factual assessment may be necessary, e.g. whether further prior art might be cited against the reformulated claim.

All requests on file!

The Supreme Court thus held that the FPC correctly did not admit the reformulated auxiliary request into the proceedings for being belated, and dismissed the appeal.

it remains to be seen how parties will adapt their course of action in the future. But I would not be surprised if defendants in nullity cases (and plaintiffs in infringement cases when faced with a plea for nullity in defense) will submit a lot more auxiliary requests at early stages of the proceedings.

Reported by Martin WILMING

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Supreme Court
Case No. 4A_543/2017 | Decision of 08 May 2018 | ‘Appeal against decision O2015_012 of 29 August 2017

AstraZeneca AB
./.
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:

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

Representative(s) of Respondent / Plaintiff:

SUPREME COURT DECISION

Fullscreen view (new tab)

FIRST INSTANCE 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.

Hard materials, hard times …

Case No. O2016_001 ¦ Main Hearing of 3 May 2018

comadur.com

This case started off already on 27 February 2016, between Harcane and Comadur. There is not much known about the plaintiff, but the defendant is a company of the Swatch Group, specialising in hard materials. Noteworthy, the owner of Harcane, Rui Carolla, apparently had spent part of his career with Comadur; see SHAB.

Quite some background information was already included in the official announcement of the hearing. The plaintiff in first place requests that CH 707 572 B1, concerning a binder for an injection molding composition, be declared null and void. As an auxiliary measure, it is requested that the patent be assigned to the plaintiff. Allegedly, the patent lacks novelty over US 5,266,264, several PhD theses and the sale of a certain “feedstock” including the patented binder. The defendant had allegedly been provided with it back in November 2012. Further, the plaintiff alleges that the mixture according to CH 707 572 B1 had in fact been invented by Mr. Lestarquit, who was at the time an employee of the Plaintiff.

The defendant holds the view that the claimed subject-matter is new and inventive. All the compositions had been developed by Mr. Cartier, an employee of the defendant since 1999. The “mix sheets” developed by Mr. Cartier allegedly have only been put into practice by employees of the plaintiff, including Mr. Lestarquit. The defendant thus requests that the case should be dismissed in its entirety.

In the hearing, the alleged obviousness of CH 707 572 B1 was intensely discussed. Both parties had identified the characterizing part of claim 1 as the distinguishing feature, but proposed (opposing) problem-and-solution approaches (EPO Guidelines, G-VII, 5). The expert opinion of the judge-rapporteur had apparently been in favor of the plaintiff. Further, it was discussed whether the feedstock that had been exchanged between the parties during the collaboration had become public / is part of the prior art.

Initially, the defendant had no interest in settlement discussions, in view of some parallel proceedings elsewhere. Rather, the defendant requested that the present proceedings be stayed until after such parallel proceedings are concluded. Still, the defendant finally agreed to enter into settlement discussions as a first step.

Note that CH 707 572 B1 (filed 15 July 2013) has no further family members. However, we came across patent family WO 2014/191304 A1, claiming priority of CH 01021/13, filed 28 May 2013 and published as CH 708 097 A2, which is pretty similar to the patent in suit. It remains to be seen how all this will be sorted out.

Reported by Ingo LUMMER and Martin WILMING

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Case No. O2016_001 ¦ Main Hearing of 3 May 2018

Harcane Sàrl

./.

Comadur SA

Judges:

  • Dr. Mark SCHWEIZER
  • Dr. Tobias BREMI
  • Dr. Michael STÖRZBBACH
  • Dr. Regula RÜEDI
  • Dr. Thomas LEGLER

Judge-rapporteur:

  • Dr. Tobias BREMI

Court Clerk:

  • Agnieszka TABERSKA

Representative(s) of Plaintiff:

  • Jean-Claude SCHWEIZER (SLB)

Representative(s) of Defendant:

  • Dr. Nathalie TISSOT (Tissot)

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.

Are rights re-established once and for all?

Case No. O2017_016 ¦ Main Hearing of 25 April 2018

Signpost

I have attended the hearing in this matter earlier today. Infringement of the Swiss SPC C00716606/01 concerning sevelamer is at stake; the basic patent is EP 0 716 606 B1 of Genzyme Corporation. Interim injunctive relief had been granted in earlier proceedings S2016_009; see this Blog here.

Notably, infringement per se is undisputed, as well as validity of the basic patent. However, the defendant (only) alleges 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 parties had been summoned to the main hearing after a single exchange of briefs; plaintiff’s reply and defendant’s rejoinder were pleaded in the hearing. Since the only question at stake is a legal one, this worked out smoothly. It was also noted that no expert opinion of the judge-rapporteur will be established.

Now, can the SPC still be challenged for wrongful reinstatement in the present civil proceedings?

Undisputedly, wrongful reinstatement is not explicitly listed as a ground for nullity in Art. 140k PatA. However, the parties dissent on whether or not the list is exhaustive.

Defendant essentially argued that the Swiss legislator voluntarily aligned the Swiss law with the respective EU regulation, and that also further developments of the EU law need to be taken into account; BGE 129 III 135, ¶6. In the view of the defendant, the ECJ in all its decisions on SPCs essentially declared SPCs invalid whenever its grant had not been objectively justified — irrespective of whether or not the ground was explicitly listed in Art. 15 of Regulation (EC) 469/2009.

Plaintiff disagreed; the ECJ never introduced additional grounds of nullity but rather only interpreted the grounds that are explicitly mentioned. Further, the nullity grounds referred to in Art. 140k(1) lit a PatA explicitly only refer to Art. 146(1). However, the time limit for filing the SPC request is defined in Art. 146(2). The plaintiff noted that this focus only on paragraph 1 underlines the legislator’s intent to not include paragraph 2 into the list of grounds for nullity. Plaintiff further argued that any interested third party could well 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 the defendant failed to do so. See also the summary judgment in ¶3.5 in this respect. The decision on reinstatement is thus formally final, and the defendant has to live with it. Plaintiff further referred to BGE 90 I 186 (¶3) which held that re-establishment of rights according to Art. 47 PatA only concerns the relationship of the patentee to the Office; the effects on third parties are regulated exhaustively (sic!) by Article 48 PatA with the prior user right for bona fide third parties.

The later the day, the more pronounced the arguments: The parties reproached each other for having not been able to refer to a prior decision on precisely this issue to their favour. On the funny side, plaintiff noted that this is only because so far just no one has come up with this absurd idea.

So sad

The parties were then asked by the presiding judge whether they were interested in settlement discussions. Unfortunately, I cannot tell what the answer was because it was requested that the public be excluded before the question is answered, and this request was granted.

UPDATE 05 May 2018:

I meanwhile obtained the request and the grant of reinstatement.

Reported by Martin WILMING

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Case No. O2017_016 ¦ Main Hearing of 25 April 2018

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

./.

Salmon Pharma GmbH

Composition of the Board of the FPC:

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

Court Clerk:

  • Susanne ANDERHALDEN

Representative(s) of Requester:

Representative(s) of Respondent:

  • Dr. Robert BRINER (CMS)

ANNOUNCEMENT

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.

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.

UPDATE 22 October 2018:

The appeal has been dismissed by the Supreme Court (4A_282/2018; reasons not yet available).

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.

An incredibly complex mechanical writing instrument not of this world

Case No. O2015_018 ¦ Main hearing of 13 March 2018

UPDATE 13 March 2018:

I have added some notes from the hearing below.

The FPC today published an announcement of the main hearing in this matter. The parties apparently have locked jaws about an invention relating to a mechanical writing instrument.

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.

The plaintiff argued that the invention had been made by Frédéric Garinaud, an independent inventor who had applied for a European patent for this invention. The application has then been assigned to the plaintiff and a patent was granted; EP 2 479 648 B1, see Swissreg and European Patent Register for further bibliographic details.

Defendant countersued and requested that EP’648 be declared invalid, or assigned to the defendant. Interestingly, defendant argues that the invention had been made by Frédéric Garinaud when he had been working for the defendant. (Note, however, that Mr Garinaud is not mentioned as an inventor on CH’790.)

In addition, defendant requests injunctive relief for the product ‘Mechanical Fountain Pen RMS05‘.

Fountain Pen RMS05 by Richard Mille

This product has some amazing mechanics; see yourself:

Even more amazing is the price tag of $105,000 (as reported by Bloomberg and others).

The hearing will be in French language, and it will be a real ‘town hall’ meeting: The venue this time is not the Federal Administrative Court in St. Gallen, but rather the Hôtel de Ville de Neuchâtel.

Reported by Martin WILMING

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Case No. O2015_018 ¦ Main hearing of 13 March 2018

Guenat SA Montres Valgine ./.  Swiss Finest SA

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)

ANNOUNCEMENT

Fullscreen view (new tab)

NOTES FROM THE HEARING

BE ON THE KNOW

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