If incorrect pre-litigation behavior of only one of the parties (in this case evasive and conflicting answers to warning letters of a patentee) leads to unnecessary litigation, the court costs and legal expenses of the counterparty have to be imposed entirely on the party that acted incorrectly. Click here for the full text of this case. A…

The gentle reader of this blog knows that on January 1, 2012 the new Federal Patent Court will take up work in Switzerland. As Switzerland’s court of first instance in matters dealing with patents, the Federal Patent Court will rule on civil-law disputes concerning patents. It will rule, for instance, on litigation over patent validity…

The Federal Institute of Intellectual Property can also issue a supplementary protection certificate to an applicant if a certificate for the same active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) or combination thereof has already been granted to a third person. By interpreting the law in that way – only restricting the grant of a certificate for the same…

The Swiss Federal Supreme Court held in a recent decision that the Swiss company Teva Pharma AG had to bear the court costs and reimburse Novartis’s attorneys’ fees in preliminary injunction proceedings because of Teva’s contradictory conduct in this case. The decision was based on the following facts: On March 16, 2010, Teva was granted…

In a very recently published decision of 4 March 2011 the Swiss Federal Supreme Court dealt with the decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal 2/08 and approved a dosage regime for a pharmaceutical product as patentable subject matter of a Swiss type claim under the EPC 1973. According to the Supreme Court such claim…

According to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) the envisaged Unified Patent Litigation System (UPLS) is not compatible with the law of the European Union. The main debate is about the influence of the ECJ in patent matters. However, the patent communities in the Member States of the European Union do not seem to be keen on extending the ECJ’s jurisdiction in patent matters and patent practitioners in EPC member states that are not members of the EU are still less.

Two weeks ago the judges of the new Swiss Federal Patent Court convened for the first time for their swearing-in and elected the vice president of the Federal Patent Court among their ranks (Mr. Frank Schnyder). The president (Mr. Dieter Braendle) had been designated by the Federal Swiss Parliament in advance. The Judges will have to determine the new rules of procedure for patent cases pending before the future Federal Patent Court during the next few weeks. Kluwer Patent Blog will keep you posted.

In a recent decision the Federal Swiss Supreme Court reversed a decision rendered by the Civil Court of the Canton Basel-Stadt in a case between Novartis and Teva Pharma concerning Teva’s product Fluvastatin-Teva Retard because the judgment did not contain a written statement of grounds. The patent litigation community eagerly awaits the new Federal Code of Civil Procedure that will enter into force on 1 January 2011. After the harmonization of the Swiss civil procedural law, the issue of missing reasoning and statements of ground should not arise anymore.