Bombardier ./. Stadler: A case of interest for commuters

Case No. O2012_043 ¦ Main Hearing of 16 March 2015

Note that Hepp Wenger Ryffel is involved in this case on behalf of the defendants.

Plaintiff in this infringement action is Bombardier Transportation. The defendants of the Stadler group of companies essentially only argued for nullity as a plea in defense. The patent in suit is EP 1 963 157 B1 (see EPO Register and Swissreg for any further details). Stadler and Siemens had already challenged EP’157 in opposition / appeal proceedings at the EPO, but the patent was maintained as granted; see the decisions of the OD and the BoA here and here. The proceedings at the FPC had been stayed pending the decision of the BoA.

Now, what is the patent all about? In simple terms, it concerns the pairwise arrangement of transformer units and power converter units at the wheel units of a train:

The only independent claim 1 reads as follows:

Rail vehicle with a body (102) which is supported on a first wheel unit (103.1) and a second wheel unit (103.2) located a distance away in the longitudinal direction of the body (102), and an electrical drive device (104), which drives the first wheel unit (103.1) and the second wheel unit (103.2), wherein the drive device (104) comprises at least one first transformer unit (105.1) and a first power converter unit (106.1) allocated to it, which are arranged in the body (102), characterised in that the first transformer unit (105.1) and the first power converter unit (106.1) are arranged in the area of the first wheel unit (103.1) and drive the first wheel unit (103.1), and the drive device (104) comprises a second transformer unit (105.2) and a second power converter unit (106.2) allocated to it, which are arranged in the area of the second wheel unit (103.2) and drive the second wheel unit (103.2).

From the writ and the interim assessment of the reporting judge (both were put on file in EPO opposition / appeal proceedings; see here and here) it is clear that Stadler’s electric double-deck trains KISS are at stake:

Excerpt from interim assessment of the reporting judge, p. 3
Excerpt from interim assessment of the reporting judge, p. 3

See the interim assessment for any further information:

Download (PDF, 830KB)

In brief, the interim assessment held that (i) EP’157 is not novel over documents (compiled here from the EPO online file-wrapper) that had been submitted from ABB to Siemens and Stadler without confidentiality obligation; (ii) alternatively, EP’157 is not inventive over a combination of Wieser and Red Line Car. Further, a prior user right was acknowledged in the interim assessment (Art. 35 PatA), based on an offer provided to the Swiss Federal Railways (SBB).

All these issues were extensively discussed. In addition, the defendant also alleged a lack of novelty / inventive step over a presentation given by Peter Spuhler at a UITP conference (and corresponding documentary material in a database). My personal quote of the day: With respect to the prior user right, the defendant noted that the plaintiff merely refused to enter into a “dogmatic infight.”

Die Klägerin betreibt ein dogmatisches Durcheinander; sie verweigert den “dogmatischen Nahkampf”, […]

The parties also filed their debit notes. The value in dispute is CHF 1m. The plaintiff requested compensation for legal representation according to the tariff (Art. 5 CostR-PatC); no debit note was put on file in this respect. Plaintiff’s alleged costs for an assisting patent attorney amount to approx. CHF 15k. On the other hand, the defendant asserted much higher costs: CHF 376k for legal representation; CHF 104k for a former team of assisting patent attorneys and CHF 66k for the assisting patent attorneys currently on file. It remains to be seen whether the value in dispute is to be adjusted.

The parties did not enter into settlement negotiations.

Reported by Martin WILMING

— BIBLIOGRAPHY —

Case No. O2012_043 ¦ Main Hearing of 16 March 2016

Bombardier Transportation GmbH

./.

(1)  Stadler Altenrhein AG
(2)  Stadler Bussnang AG
(3)  Stadler Rail AG

Board of Judges:

  • Dr. Dieter BRÄNDLE
  • Dr. Tobias BREMI
  • Dr. Daniel KRAUS
  • Dr. Markus MÜLLER
  • Dr. Christophe SAAM

Court Clerk:

  • Susanne ANDERHALDEN

Reporting Judge:

  • Dr. Tobias BREMI

Representative(s) of Plaintiff:

  • Dr. Michael RITSCHER (MLL)
  • Dr. Mark SCHWEIZER (MLL)

Representative(s) of Defendants:

— PATENT IN SUIT —

Download (PDF, 466KB)

— BE ON THE KNOW —

Would you like to be notified of new posts? Here you go.

Matter fixed: patent maintained in amended form

Case No. O2013_006 ¦ Decision of 07 October 2015 ¦ “Teilweise Klagegutheissung; Teilnichtigkeit wegen offenkundiger Vorbenutzung”

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

The patent in suit is EP 944 937 B1 of Gustav Klauke GmbH; the plaintiff in this nullity case is Von Arx AG. See Swissreg for further bibliographic details. The patent pertains to a hydraulic pressing device (such as illustrated below) with an automatically actuating return valve for the hydraulic oil. The closed and open positions of this return valve are illustrated in Fig. 1 and 2 of the patent, respectively (click to enlarge):

The main hearing took place on September 3, 2015; see this Blog here.

i)   Prior use

The plaintiff alleged that a public prior use of a device PT2 with the serial no. 95112060 was novelty destroying for the patent in suit. In first place, it had to be assessed whether the alleged prior use had actually occured, and what exactly had been made publicly available.

prior use in re O2013_006
Powertool PT2-H

In general terms, the FPC held that it is up to the plaintiff to establish what exactly had been made available to whom, and under which circumstances (BGE 117 II 480, r. 1; Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, I.C.1.9.9; EPO Guidelines of Examination, G-IV, 7.2). Absolute certainty is not required. Rather, it is sufficient if no reasonable doubt remains, or any such doubt appears neglectable (BGE 130 III 321, r. 3.2).

The FPC held that a public disclosure of this device had occured on July 17, 1996, by means of a sale. However, it was also under dispute what actually had been made available to the public at that time. Various technical drawings of the valve of the PT2 device were presented by the plaintiff. Even though the technical drawings of the valve of the PT2 device were not fully consistent, the FPC held that the differences between these drawings were only minor and could be neglected. In particular, the FPC held that none of these differences would imply any functional difference of the valve.

The FPC thus held that a prior use of the PT2 device with a valve as shown in the adjacent figure has been established.

ii)   Claim construction

The independent claim as granted required that

the automatically reacting return valve is built such that it is maintained in the open position during the entire return stroke of the hydraulic piston.

In consideration of what is discussed in the specification of the patent (in particular paragraphs [0008] and [0020] where only a partial return stroke is outlined), the FPC held that this feature is to be understood as to refer to a (return) stroke until a starting position for the next working cycle is reached again. Thus, the feature neither necessarily requires a (return) stroke until a mechanical stopper is reached, nor is it fulfilled by just an indefinitely small length of a stroke. Note that this claim construction differs from the decision of the German Federal Patent Court; see decision 6 Ni 47/14 (EP), r. 5.2.

With regard to the features in the 2nd auxiliary request, the FPC clarified how the term “return valve consists of a hydraulic piston” is to be construed. “Consists of” cannot reasonably mean that the return valve consists exclusively of a hydraulic piston in the strict sense because a valve cannot consist exclusively of a piston. Therefore, the FPC argues that the term “return valve consists of a hydraulic piston” specifies the object of the invention in a clear and comprehensible manner.

iii)   Patentability

The European patent had already been challenged in EPO opposition / appeal proceedings by other parties but had been upheld as granted; cf. EPO file wrapper and decision T 0861/05 for further details.

Novelty of the patent in suit over EP 636 788 A1 and FR 2 563 291 A1 (referred to in col. 1, l. 8-13 of EP’788 with its application number FR 8406346) was again acknowledged by the FPC, but the prior use PT2 was held to be novelty-destroying. Nevertheless, the 2nd auxilliary request was upheld.

iv)   Patent maintained in amended form

Claim 1 as upheld according to the 2nd auxilliary request reads as follows (amendments over claim 1 as granted marked-up):

Hydraulisches Pressgerät (2)

mit einem Festteil (26) und einem Bewegungsteil (24),

wobei das Bewegungsteil (24) durch einen Hydraulikkolben (9) relativ zu dem Festteil (26) bewegt wird

und mittels einer Rückstellfeder (10) in eine Ausgangsstellung zurückbewegbar ist,

wobei die Rückbewegung in Abhängigkeit von einem vorbestimmten Pressdruck auslösbar ist durch Ansprechen eines Rücklaufventils (1)

dadurch gekennzeichnet,

dass das selbsttätig ansprechende Rücklaufventil (1) so ausgebildet ist, dass es durch den Druck des zurücklau-
fenden Öls über den gesamten Rückstellweg des Hydraulikkolbens (9) in der Öffnungsstellung gehalten ist und

dass das Rücklaufventil (1) aus einem Ventilkolben (3) besteht, wobei der Ventilkolben (3) mit einer Ventilkolbenfläche (4, 5) ausgebildet ist,

wobei eine im Verschlusszustand wirksame Teilkolbenfläche im Hinblick auf den gewünschten Maximaldruck ausgelegt ist,

wobei die durch den Bohrungsdurchmesser einer mit dem Druckraum (6) verbundenen Bohrung (7) wirksame kleinere Teilkolbenfläche im Zuge der Verpressung mittels des hydraulischen Pressgerätes (2) von dem Öl beaufschlagt ist und

wobei bei Überschreiten einer durch den Bohrungsdurchmesser vordefinierten Höhe des Öldrucks der Ventilkolben (3) des Rücklaufventils (1) über die Teilkolbenfläche aus dem Dichtsitz angehoben wird,

wonach eine wesentlich grössere Kolbenfläche in Wirkung tritt,

wobei weiter das Rücklaufventil (1) in dieser Stellung mit einem wesentlich niedrigeren Begrenzungsdruck als in der Verschlusslage arbeitet, da der Begrenzungsdruck in dieser Stellung nicht mehr durch die Teilkolbenfläche definiert ist, sondern vielmehr durch die Gesamtoberfläche (5) des als Längsschieberkolben ausgebildeten Ventilkolbens(3)

und wobei der Ventilkolben (3) über den gesamten Rückstellweg des Hydraulikkolbens (9) infolge des auf den Ventilkolben(3) einwirkenden Öldruckes in der Öffnungsstellung verbleibt.

v)   Interim assessment of the reporting judge

In an interim assessment the reporting judge had assessed the validity of the patent in suit and the validity of the main and auxiliary requests: Assuming the prior use was substantiated, then only the 4th auxillary request was considered new and inventive. The FPC followed this assessment only partially and concluded that claim 1 of the 2nd auxiliary request is admissible, new and inventive (see also section iv), above).

vi)   Co-pending proceedings in Germany

This claim had also been presented in parallel proceedings in Germany, but the Federal Patent Court of Germany denied an inventive step; see decision 6 Ni 47/14 (EP), r. 6.4. The German Federal Patent Court only upheld the 4th auxiliary request. Both parties lodged an appeal to the Federal Supreme Court in Germany.  

vii)   Foreign court rulings in parallel proceedings

The FPC emphasized that it generally does not appreciate any unsolicited submissions. However, the Supreme Court requires that court rulings in parallel proceedings are to be considered. Therefore, parties are expected to inform the court of any foreign rulings immediately; see also this Blog here.

viii)   Costs

Both parties did not prevail entirely. The defendant limited the patent with his 2nd auxiliary request. Therefore, the court held that an apportionment of the costs at 2/3 (defendant) vs 1/3 (plaintiff) is justified.

The decision has not been appealed by either party.

Reported by Ingo LUMMER and Martin WILMING

— BIBLIOGRAPHY —

Case No. O2013_006 ¦ Decision of 07 October 2015 ¦ “Teilweise Klagegutheissung; Teilnichtigkeit wegen offenkundiger Vorbenutzung”

Von Arx AG ./. Gustav Klauke GmbH

Board of Judges:

  • Dr. Dieter BRÄNDLE
  • Dr. Tobias BREMI
  • Dr. Kurt SUTTER

Court Clerk:

  • Susanne ANDERHALDEN

Reporting Judge:

  • Dr. Tobias BREMI

Representative(s) of Plaintiff:

Representative(s) of Defendant:

— FULLTEXT  —

Download (PDF, 1.03MB)

— BE ON THE KNOW —

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

Under pressure: Von Arx AG ./. Gustav Klauke GmbH

Case No. O2013_006 ¦ Main Hearing of 03 September 2015

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

The patent in suit is EP 944 937 B1 of Gustav Klauke GmbH. The plaintiff in this nullity case is Von Arx AG. See Swissreg for further bibliographic details of the Swiss part of this Europen patent in suit. The patent pertains to a hydraulic pressing device (such as illustrated below) with an automatically actuating return valve for the hydraulic oil. The closed and open positions of this return valve are illustrated in Fig. 1 and 2 of the patent, respectively (click to enlarge):

The only independent claim 1 reads as follows:

Hydraulic pressing device (2) having a stationary part (26) and a moving part (24), the moving part (24) being moved relative to the stationary part (26) by means of a hydraulic piston (9) and being moveable by means of a return spring return into an initial position, wherein the return stroke is releasable in dependence on a predetermined pressing pressure by actuation of a return valve, characterized in that the automatically actuating return valve is built such that it is maintained in the open position during the entire return stroke of the hydraulic piston.

The European patent had already been challenged in EPO opposition / appeal proceedings by other parties but had been upheld as granted; cf. EPO file wrapper and decision T 0861/05 for further details.

Parallel proceedings are ongoing in Germany. In first instance, the Federal Patent Court of Germany has upheld the German part of EP 944 937 B1 in limited form; see decision 6 Ni 47/14 (EP). This wording is also one of the auxiliary requests of the defendant in the Swiss proceedings. Both parties lodged an appeal to the Federal Supreme Court. Infringement proceedings are currently stayed pending nullity proceedings.

The plaintiff alleged that a public prior use of a device was novelty destroying for the patent in suit. It is under dispute which valve had actually been embodied in this device. Moreover, the general mechanism of this valve was extensively discussed.

Some discussion came up concerning the extent of submissions in the main hearing, e.g. whether repetition of facts and arguments already on file is allowed or not. The President made clear that a didactical summary of key issues is allowed, in particular when the overall duration of the submission is well within normal limits. In any event,

[…] die Teilnahme an einer Hauptverhandlung ist kein Besuch auf dem Ponyhof!

Loosely translated, just a pointed closing remark: A main hearing is no walk in the park.

Reported by Ingo LUMMER and Martin WILMING

— BIBLIOGRAPHY —

Case No. O2013_006 ¦ Main Hearing of 03 September 2015

Von Arx AG ./. Gustav Klauke GmbH

Board of Judges:

  • Dr. Dieter BRÄNDLE
  • Dr. Tobias BREMI
  • Dr. Kurt SUTTER

Court Clerk

  • Susanne ANDERHALDEN

Reporting Judge:

  • Dr. Tobias BREMI

Representative(s) of Plaintiff:

Representative(s) of Defendant:

— PATENT IN SUIT —

Download (PDF, 1.11MB)

— BE ON THE KNOW —

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

This milk frother won’t leave you cold

Case No. S2014_006 ¦ Decision of 06 October 2014 ¦ “Kaltmilchschäumer: Gutheissung vorsorglicher Massnahmen (Patentverletzung); Anforderungen Glaubhaftmachung offenkundige Vorbenutzung; Anforderungen Sicherheitsleistung”

— IN A NUTSHELL —

A prior use as prima facie evidence in a plea of nullity is frequently cumbersome — and was unsuccessful here. The prior use had allegedly occured already more than 10 years ago. The defendant did not provide a binding cease and desist declaration; preliminary injunctive relief was granted. It was not even made conditional on the payment of a security by the plaintiff since the defendant had repeatedly argued that the allegedly infringing machines were no longer marketed anyhow. Thus, the FPC did not anticipate that the measures may cause loss or damage to the defendant (Art. 264 CPC).

— IN MORE DETAIL —

Milk frothers are frequently litigated in Switzerland. You might perhaps recall the decisions Milchschäumer and Milchschäumer II a few years ago. The present case is apparently not related to the old ones, but again pertains to a milk frother. Fortunately, catchwords are not confusingly similar: This time, it’s a milk frother for cold milk (Kaltmilchschäumer).

i) BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Latte macchiato, with milk froth toppingOne of the plaintiffs is the patentee of both patents in suit, i.e. a Swiss patent and a European patent. The other plaintiff is a member of the same group of companies. However, the parties are anonymized in the decision.

Nevertheless, from the wording of the requests and the technical details given in the decision, it is evident that CH 707 091 B1 and EP 2 120 656 B1 are the patents in suit. The patentee is Steiner AG Weggis. A connected undertaking of Steiner AG Weggis is Thermoplan AG — quite likely the second plaintiff. Never heard? Thermoplan manufactures the machines that Bloomberg recently referred to as Starbucks’ secret weapon.

Opposition/appeal proceedings are currently pending against EP 2 120 656 B1. The online file wrapper at the EPO is insightful: Franke Coffee Systems GmbH of Germany intervened as a party (under Art. 105 EPC), since proceedings for infringement of that patent had been instituted against them. In the intervention, it is referred to two summary proceedings at the regional court of Düsseldorf (Germany), i.e. 4a O 52/14 and 4a O 81/14 (the fulltext of the intervention is available here). No further details on these proceedings are available to date, but the present decision of the FPC also refers to two “corresponding decisions in summary proceedings” at the regional court of Düsseldorf on the German part the patent in suit. There are some further hints in the decision; in sum, it is abundantly clear to me that Franke Coffee Systems is involved as the defendant (i.e. the Swiss member of the Franke group of companies, Franke Kaffeemaschinen AG).

The European patent was maintained in slightly amended form by an Opposition Division (OD) of the EPO; see the Druckexemplar of the interlocutory decision of the OD. Appeal proceedings are still pending. The independent claims as maintained by the OD read as follows (markup vis-à-vis EP 2 120 656 B1 as granted:

1. A method for the production of milk foam or milk-based drinks, wherein milk is sucked with a pump (1) out of a container (3, 3′) and conveyed to an outlet (11′), air or a gas being added to the milk, whereby the milk/air mixture is processed in a cold or hot state into milk foam and conveyed as cold or hot milk foam to the outlet (11′), characterised in that
the milk or the milk/air mixture, which is sucked by the pump (1) und mixed with the air respectively the gas, is selectively conveyed via a throttle point (12) directly or via a flow heater (16) to the outlet (11′).

2. An apparatus for implementing the method according to claim 1, having a pump (1) sucking the milk from a container (3, 3′) via a suction line (2), having an outlet line (10) leading from the pump (1) to an outlet (11′), having an air supply line (5) opening out into the suction line (2), characterised in that the outlet line (10) has two parallel sections (10a, 10b), which can be enabled selectively by means of a valve (15) between the throttle point (12) and the outlet (11′), a flow heater (16) being assigned to one of these outlet line sections.

ii) WORDING OF THE REQUESTS

The proper wording of requests for injunctive relief is a matter of ongoing discussion amongst practitioners. Swiss case law strictly follows the rule that a request must be precise enough to allow enforcement of the prohibition by mere factual inspection; see e.g. this Blog here (with further reference). The present request for preliminary injunctive relief is quite lengthy. But it is a good example of a request that makes use of photographic illustrations of the infringing features to meet this goal (in German language, but you will get the idea):

Request for preliminary injunctive relief, with photographic illustration of features

Moreover, the request did not reach beyond the scope of the patents. Consequently, the FPC held that the wording of the requests was formally allowable.

iii) CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

Construction of the term “throttle point (12)” was under dispute. Clearly, this throttle point converts the milk/air mixture to a milk foam. In a function-oriented construction of the term, the FPC first clarified the terms “milk/air mixture” and “milk foam”. There is neither a precise definition in the patents nor have the parties provided any commonly accepted definition. A Ph.D. thesis of Katja BORCHERDING was not held sufficient since it only relied on a single reference for an amount of 0.5-0.97 vol.% of air in a milk foam. The term “milk/air mixture” was thus construed very broadly as “any mixture of air and milk”, thus also encompassing “milk foam”.

As to the contribution of the throttle point, the FPC held that this is any kind of bottleneck that at least contributes to the formation of a milk foam.

iv) ALLEGEDLY INFRINGING EMBODIMENT NO LONGER IN USE, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ISSUED ANYHOW: HOW COMES?

The defendant argued that the allegedly infringing machine had only been produced and sold from January 2013 to February 2014. It had then been replaced by a new machine with a different (allegedly non-infringing) milk frother. However, the defendant did not provide any arguments as to why the contested embodiment would not infringe the patents in suit. The FPC considered the legitimate interest of the plaintiff ex officio (Art. 59 CPC). A danger of repetition of the alleged and undisputed infrigement remained since the defendant did not declare to cease and desist; cf. BGE 124 III 72, r. 2a and BGE 128 III 96, r. 2e. Moreover, validity of the patents was still disputed, and even the allegedly non-infringing machine was illustrated with a diagram that still carried the name of the contested device. In sum, the FPC held that the legitimate interest in preliminary injunctive relief still remained.

A threat of a not easily reparable harm was acknowledged for the reason alone that it would be difficult for the plaintiff to later on prove the causality of the harm to have occured from the infringement. Urgency of the matter was not compromised by the fact that the plaintiff had awaited the outcome of the decision of the OD of the EPO; this was rather appreciated as prudent by the FPC.

v) PRIOR USE: REQUIREMENT OF PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE

The defendant argued for nullity of the patents in suit. Besides some further prior art documents (see below), nullity was argued in view of a prior use “Esprè Magic”. This prior use had been documented in corresponding opposition proceedings before the EPO with the following documents:

  • B3 (invoice)
  • B4 (flyer)
  • B5 (technical assessment by patent attorney Philipp RÜFENACHT)
  • B6 (list of exhibitors)
  • B7 (exhibition flyer)

Note that the prior use had occured already more than ten years ago. Two affidavits in support of the prior use and the technical details thereof were put on file by the defendant when the plaintiff had disputed the public availability and the relevant technical details of “Esprè Magic”. These affidavits were not supported with further documentary material. Moreover, the affidavits were not free from inconsistencies. Thus, the FPC was reluctant in considering these declarations. Apparently, the Regional Court of Düsseldorf came to the same conclusion in parallel proceedings in Germany. Moreover, it was not only that the FPC had doubts as to whether a prior use had actually occured or not. Even the technical details of the alleged prior use were held to be not sufficiently clarified by prima facie evidence to be considered novelty-destroying for the patents in suit.

vi) FURTHER PRIOR ART DOCUMENTS

Novelty of claim 1 of CH 707 091 B1 over R4 (i.e. EP 0 485 350 A1) was disputed. The decision highlights two decisive issues: First, the term “throttle point (12)” was construed very broadly (cf. above), and thus the bottleneck in conduit 6 of R4 was identified as to fulfil this feature. Second, it was required that the milk foam be conveyed to the outlet in a cold state. R4 discloses that the conduits 3 and 6 can be held at room temperature, thus with inoperative heating elements 10. Accordingly, the FPC held that a prima facie lack of novelty of claim 1 of CH 707 091 B1 was given.

To the contrary, it was held that no prima facie case of lack of novelty or inventive step of claims 1 and 2 of EP 2 120 656 B1 had been established. The FPC essentially followed the reasoning of the OD of the EPO in consideration of R4 and R6 (i.e. US 6,192,785 B1).

vii) SECURITY

The FPC could have made the interim measure conditional on the payment of security by the plaintiff, but (only) if it had been anticipated that the measures may cause loss or damage to the defendant (Art. 264 CPC). The defendant requested a security of CHF 2’000’000,–, but the FPC stressed that the defendant had repeatedly argued that the allegedly infringing machines are no longer marketed anyhow. Therefore, one would not anticipate that the preliminary injunction could cause loss or damage to the defendant.

viii) WHAT’S UP ON THE MARKET

The allegedly infringing machines are not identified in the decision. But in the meantime it has become a rubber-stamping excercise for me to dig a bit deeper into what is actually happening on the market. I have learned from followers of this blog that this is highly appreciated. So, these are the snippets of information that I could gather from the internet:

The world premiere of the Franke FoamMaster™ FM800 (flyer dated 12/12; CH and DE) was in early 2013 in Switzerland (see gourmet 4/13). Consequently, this machine was also promoted on the Franke website back in 2013 as the new premium device:

Franke Website (CH): Screenshot of July 30, 2014
Franke Website (CH): Screenshot of July 30, 2013

However, the FM800 is no longer promoted on the Franke Website for Switzerland (see screenshot of August 13, 2014 below). The same holds true for the Website for Germany. No signs of the FM800 machine anymore. Seemingly, the FM800 has been replaced by a machine FM750 (flyer dated 07/14; CH):

Franke Website (CH): Screenshot of August 12, 2014
Franke Website (CH): Screenshot of August 13, 2014

Thus, the FM800 would perfectly match the bibliographic criteria of the allegedly infringing machine at stake in the present decision. I have found a detailed technical booklet on the FM800 machine on the internet, with a water flow diagram (Wasserlaufschema) on p. 320:

water flow diagram

This illustration looks strikingly similar to the one reproduced on p. 6 of the decision, but details are scarcely visible in the decision. Pump P100 and restrictor BL0.8 are referred to in the decision, and are also visible on the right side of the above water flow diagram. In my personal opinion, all these are strong technical indications towards the FM800 machine.

Reported by Martin WILMING

— BIBLIOGRAPHY —

Case No. S2014_006 ¦ Decision of 06 October 2014 ¦ “Kaltmilchschäumer: Gutheissung vorsorglicher Massnahmen (Patentverletzung); Anforderungen Glaubhaftmachung offenkundige Vorbenutzung; Anforderungen Sicherheitsleistung”

(not identified) ./. (not identified)

Subject(s):

  • Patent infringement
  • Preliminary measures

Composition of the Board of the FPC:

  • Dr. iur. Dieter BRÄNDLE (President)
  • Dr. Tobias BREMI (Judge)
  • Dr. Herbert LAEDERACH (Judge)
  • Lic. iur. Susanne ANDERHALDEN (First Court Clerk)

Representative(s) of Plaintiff:

Representative(s) of Defendant:

  • Dr. Lorenza FERRARI HOFER (Pestalozzi)
  • Dr. Michael REINLE (Pestalozzi)
  • Dr. Philipp RÜFENACHT (Keller), assisting in patent matters

— FULL TEXT OF THE DECISION —

Download (PDF, 309KB)