Source: https://www.patentlitigation.ch/category/main-proceedings/page/10/
Timestamp: 2020-08-07 17:55:24
Document Index: 574421936

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 26', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 72', 'Art. 66', 'Art. 72', 'Art. 26', 'Art. 40', 'Art. 40', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 26', 'Art. 32', 'Art. 73', 'Art. 41', 'Art. 62', 'Art. 423', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 27', 'Art. 404', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 27', 'Art. 404', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 132', 'Art. 23', 'Art. 69']

Main proceedings Archives | Page 10 of 10 | FPC Review
O2012_021: Federal Supreme Court partly overruled decision of the FPC
Case No. 4A_443/2012 ¦ Decision of 05 February 2013 ¦ “Appeal against the decision of the Federal Patent Court of 07 June 2012“
For the background of the case and the underlying decision of the FPC in detail, please see this blog here. In brief, the FPC had ruled that it is competent to decide on claims for injunctive relief and damages, pertaining to infrastructure for collecting the performance-related heavy vehicle fee (HVF) levied in Switzerland.
The Swiss Confederation lodged an appeal against the decision of the FPC. For now, only the issues of competency of the FPC are at stake.
1. Competency of the FPC with respect to injunctive relief
The Supreme Court stressed that a patentee’s rights are emanating from the Federal Act on Invention Patents which is part of the civil law. A patent is a property in the sense of Art. 26(1) of the Federal Constitution and as such is protected by the constitutional principle of guarantee of ownership (BGE 126 III 129, reasons 8a). The Confederation can be patentee, and on the other hand it has to respect patent rights. Consequently, the Confederation is not entitled to infringe a patent, even if it acts in public interest (reasons 2.3.1).
Das Gemeinwesen wird somit auch im Rahmen der Erfüllung öffentlicher Aufgaben vom Ausschliesslichkeitsrecht nach Art. 8 PatG erfasst und ist insoweit grundsätzlich dem patentrechtlichen Unterlassungsanspruch (Art. 72 i.V.m. Art. 66 PatG) ausgesetzt.
Thus, the Supreme Court confirmed: The Confederation has to face requests for injunctive relief under Art. 72 PatG, and the FPC has exclusive jurisdiction in this respect (Art. 26(1) lit. a PatCA).
In a detailed obiter dictum (reasons 2.3.2 ff), the Supreme Court also expanded on the competency of the FPC to decide on a claim of the Confederation for a compulsory license in the interest of the public. In case of public, non-commercial use it is not mandatory that the Confederation tries to obtain a license under market-reasonable conditions prior to filing a suit to be granted a compulsory license (Art. 40(1) and Art. 40e of the Federal Act on Invention Patents; similar to Art. 31 lit. b TRIPS). The FPC has exclusive jurisdiction in such cases (Art. 26(1) lit a PatCA). Further, the Supreme Court briefly touched on the topic whether the injunctive relief (as a right conferred by a patent) could be subject to expropriation under Art. 32(1) Federal Act on Invention Patents, but did not provide further guidance in this respect.
2. Competency of the FPC with respect to damages
The plaintiff / respondent requested damages of CHF 62’466’022,85 based on civil law (Art. 73(1) Federal Act on Invention Patents; Art. 41 ff, Art. 62 ff and Art. 423 Code of Obligations). However, the Confederation is only liable under civil law in case of commercial activities, not in case of activities that concern a public function. The Supreme Court held that the use of the infrastructure and the collection of the HVF is undoubtedly carried out by the Confederation in a public function (see also BGE 128 III 76, reasons 1a in this respect).
Die strittige Verwendung der technischen Infrastruktur […] erfolgt unbestreitbar im Rahmen der Wahrnehmung einer öffentlichen Aufgabe. Eine gewerbliche Tätigkeit, die grundsätzlich Privaten wie Nichtprivaten offensteht und bei welcher die Erzielung von Gewinn eine Rolle spielt, liegt beim fraglichen Betrieb der technischen Infrastruktur nicht vor […].
Consequently, the Supreme Court overruled the decision of the FPC with respect to the competency to decide on damages: Liability of the Confederation in this case is to be assessed under the Government Liability Act. The FPC has no jurisdiction in this respect; cf. Art. 10 of the Government Liability Act.
Swiss Confederation (represented by the Federal Department of Finance) ./. Robert Bosch GmbH
Posted on August 1, 2012 February 4, 2013
Posted on July 31, 2012 June 12, 2013
According to Art. 27 PatCA, the CPC is applicable in cases before the FPC. However, Art. 404(1) CPC states that the previously applicable procedural code (of the respective Canton) remains applicable to pending cases until proceedings within the respective instance are closed. There are no transitional provisions regarding pending cases that have been transferred from cantonal courts to the FPC; only the Guidelines on proceedings before the FPC (Art. 10(2)) hold that the CPC shall be applicable. It has now been decided that based on the fact that Art. 27 PatCA is a lex specialis with regard to Art. 404(1) CPC phone 8582562535 , it takes precedence over the latter. On entering into force of PatCA, the federal procedural code is to be applied to cases transferred to the FPC. However, the parties will be given an opportunity to make submissions pertaining to any issues that they did not need or were not able to make under the terms of the previously applicable cantonal codes of procedure (cf. Art. 10(3) of the Guidelines on Proceedings before the FPC).
This is a somewhat weird case. The claim was not at all comprehensible. It only became clear that the plaintiff alleged to be a licensee of EP 1 449 391 B1, owned by Zoltan Pal. However, neither the defendant was identified, nor the alleged infringement or any details concerning the license contract. Anyhow, license fees of some hundred million CHF were alleged to be outstanding (creditor or debtor remained obscure). Not even a comprehensible request was presented. Some reference was made to a nullity suit in Germany against EP 1 449 391 B1, allegedly filed by Apple Inc., represented by Bardehle Pagenberg.
The FPC finally did not consider the case, in view of incomprehensibility of the claim (Art. 132 para. 1 and 2 CPC; Art. 23 para. 1 lit. a PatCA).
Anzufügen bleibt, dass es dem Kläger nicht etwa (im Sinne von Art. 69 ZPO) am Vermögen gebricht, sein Anliegen zu Papier zu bringen. Er schreibt gegenteils eloquent – aber er scheint nicht willens, sich an die prozessualen Vorgaben zu halten.
Representative(s) of (not identified plaintiff):
Representative(s) of (not identified defendant):