Skip to content

Kluwer Patent Blog

Kluwer Patent Blog
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
(Indirect) infringement, Account of profits, Damages, Mechanical Engineering, Switzerland, Validity

Action by stages: Swiss Federal Patent Court streamlines requirements for disclosure of information and financial accounting

Simon Holzer (Meyerlustenberger Lachenal Ltd. (MLL))/October 6, 2015March 18, 2017

As in other jurisdictions patentees in Swiss patent disputes often rely on the so called action by stages approach, which allows patentees to demand disclosure of information and financial accounting before the proceedings progress to the actual claim for lost profits, infringer’s profits or a royalty fee.

In a recently published decision dated 25 August 2015 the Swiss Federal Patent Court had to decide inter alia what preconditions have to be fulfilled before the patentee can succeed with his demand for information and financial accounting.

The Swiss Federal Patent Court ruled that the patentee only has to establish the infringement of his patent and that it is not necessary to prove fulfilment of all other preconditions to establish the financial liability of the infringing party (e.g. a causal connection between the infringing activities and the claimed profits, infringer’s fault for lost profits or at least infringer’s bad faith for infringer’s profits).

The background of the Swiss Federal Patent Court decision is the following:

The patentee filed a lawsuit against the Swiss manufacturer of spray guns in the form of an action by stages and sought – inter alia – a permanent injunction, the disclosure of information and financial accounting regarding the allegedly patent infringing spray guns and financial compensation (lost profits or infringer’s profits).

The plaintiff showed that its patent was valid and infringed but it provided no further assertions or specific evidence regarding the basis for the claimed financial compensation.

At the main hearing the defendant argued inter alia that the plaintiff had neither sufficiently substantiated nor proven all preconditions for a financial liability. Therefore, according to the defendant, also the claim for information and financial accounting had to be dismissed given that the conditions for financial compensation had not been established by the plaintiff.

However, the Swiss Federal Patent Court did not dismiss plaintiff’s claim for information and financial accounting. The Swiss Federal Patent Court held that the substantive duty for the disclosure of information and financial accounting directly results from the Swiss Patent Act and only required the establishment of patent infringing activities by the defendant. All other preconditions for the financial compensation are to be dealt with in the second stage.

The Court stated  that the plaintiff does not have to prove all requirements for the damage for which it seeks compensation, but that rather, the defendant has to disclose the required information if the patentee can establish patent infringing activities in Switzerland.

From a patent law perspective it is interesting that the German part of the same European patent was litigated in German courts with a different outcome.

Claim 1 of the European patent as confirmed by the Swiss Federal Patent Court reads as follows:

An apparatus (20) for use in applying coating material to an object comprising a spray gun (24) having a handle portion (26), an extension portion (28) which is connected with the handle portion (26), a nozzle (42) connected with the extension portion (28), an electrode (46) disposed adjacent to the nozzle (42) and away from which electrostatically charged coating material flows toward the object, a coating material flow control member (74) connected with the handle portion (26) and manually operable to an actuated condition to initiate a flow of coating material from a coating material passage (62) in said extension portion (28) through the nozzle (42) toward the object,

characterised in that

the spray gun (24) also has a purge air flow control member connected with the handle portion (26) and which is manually operable to initiate a flow of air from the coating material passage (62) in the extension portion (28) through the nozzle (42) to remove coating material from the spray gun.

In its decision 4 Ni 26/13 (EP) dated 29 April 2015 the German Federal Patent Court came to the conclusion that claim 1 of the patent is invalid insofar its scope goes beyond the following version:

An apparatus (20) for use in applying powder coating material to an object comprising a spray gun (24) having a handle portion (26), an extension portion (28) which is connected with the handle portion (26), a nozzle (42) connected with the extension portion (28), an electrode (46) disposed adjacent to the nozzle (42) and away from which electrostatically charged coating material flows toward the object, a coating material flow control member (74) connected with the handle portion (26) and manually operable to an actuated condition to initiate a flow of coating material from a coating material passage (62) in said extension portion (28) through the nozzle (42) toward the object, and a coating material passage (62) in said extension portion (28),

characterised in that

the apparatus has a valve (94), a conduit (98) and a controller (70) which, simultaneously with opening of a valve (54) and closing of a switch (78), operates the valve (94) to an open condition to enable electrode wash air under pressure from a source (96) of electrode wash air to flow through the conduit (98) to the handle portion (26) and from the handle portion (26) of the spray gun (24) through the extension portion (28) of the spray gun (24), the spray gun (24) also has a purge air flow control member (110) connected with the handle portion (26) and which is manually operable to initiate a flow of air from the coating material passage (62) in the extension portion (28) through the nozzle (42) to remove coating material from the spray gun.

The District Court of Dusseldorf ruled in its decision 4b O 25/13 – Spritzpistole dated 12 June 2014 that claim 1 of the concerned patent is not infringed by offering and/or selling the spray guns of the defendant in the Swiss proceedings.

The Swiss Patent Court was aware of the German decisions and explained why the outcome of the Swiss proceedings was different. One of the reasons is that the District Court of Dusseldorf based its decision on the German translation of the patent and for the Swiss Federal Patent Court the English version is relevant. With regard to a specific feature the two versions had slightly different meanings.

The Decision of the Swiss Federal Patent Court has been appealed to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. A final decision may be expected within 6-8 months.

image_pdfimage_print
  • Tweet
  • Pin It
  • Email

Post navigation

Next Article

Judge Sam Granata: Success mediation and arbitration centre of Unified Patent Court will depend largely on performance Court

Kluwer Patent blogger/October 11, 2015October 11, 2015

Previous Article

European (Unitary) Patents and changing borders

Kluwer Patent blogger/October 5, 2015October 5, 2015

Get Blog Posts in your Inbox!

CEPANI & Wolters Kluwer invite you

REGISTER NOW: 2018 AIPPI World Congress in Cancun

Search Posts

Blog Contributors

  • Brian Cordery
    Bristows
  • Rik Lambers
    Brinkhof
  • Daniela Ampollini
    Trevisan & Cuonzo
  • Thorsten Bausch
    Hoffmann Eitle
  • Pieter Callens
    Eubelius
  • John Collins
    Clayton Utz
  • Simon Holzer
    Meyerlustenberger Lachenal Ltd. (MLL)
  • Jan Lindberg
    Attorneys-at-Law TRUST
  • Miquel Montañá
    Clifford Chance
  • Thomas Musmann
    Rospatt Osten Pross
  • Francois Pochart
    August Debouzy
  • Kristof Roox
    Crowell & Moring
  • Brian Slater
    Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
  • Anders Valentin
    Horten
  • Hui Zhang
    ZY Partners

Kluwer IP Law News Alert

Stay informed on Intellectual Property law & developments

Go to posts on

(Compulsory) license (Cross-border) jurisdiction (Indirect) infringement Added matter Amendments Belgium Biotechnology Brexit Case Law Chemical Engineering Countries Damages Denmark Electrical Engineering Enforcement EPC EPO Equivalents European Union Exceptions to patentability Extent of Protection France Germany Injunction Inventive step Italy Mechanical Engineering Netherlands Novelty Opposition Patents Pharma Procedure Revocation Scope of protection Second Medical Use Spain SPC Sufficiency of disclosure Switzerland Unitary Patent United Kingdom United States of America UPC Validity

RSS feeds

Summary Feed Article Feed

Related Sites

  • Kluwer IP Law
  • Kluwer Copyright Blog
  • Kluwer Trademark Blog
  • Regulating for Globalization Blog
  • Author Portal
10058272-0001_290Mediation: Creating Value in International Intellectual Property DisputesThéophile Margellos, Sophia Bonne, Gordon Humphreys, Sven Stürmann
Kluwer Logo

About us

  • About Kluwer Patent Blog
  • Kluwer IP Law
  • Kluwer Law International
  • Other Online Products

Legal policy

  • Privacy and Cookie Statement
  • User Agreement and Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy

Contact

  • General Information
Back to top