Facts
The dispute opposes Siegfried Aktiengesellschaft to The Wellcome Foundation Ltd., holder of Swiss patent No. 507'266 relating to a process for manufacturing Allopurinol, a medication used to treat gout. The two companies have been in conflict for a long time over whether the manufacturing process used by Siegfried Aktiengesellschaft infringes the patent of its competitor.
On February 10, 1976, Siegfried Aktiengesellschaft brought an action before the Commercial Court of the canton of Berne against The Wellcome Foundation Ltd., requesting that it be established that it did not infringe the defendant's rights to Swiss patent No. 507'266. The defendant filed an appeal with several claims, including a request to prohibit the manufacture of Allopurinol according to a specific process.
The Commercial Court admitted the action and established that the plaintiff did not infringe the defendant's rights to patent No. 507'266. The defendant filed an appeal with the Federal Court, which was rejected on March 27, 1980. On June 12, 1989, the Federal Court also rejected a request for revision by the defendant.
On June 30, 1988, The Wellcome Foundation Ltd. brought a new action before the Cantonal Court of the canton of Basel-Country against Siegfried Aktiengesellschaft, requesting that it be established that the defendant infringed Swiss patent No. 507'266 by manufacturing Allopurinol according to a specific process. The defendant invoked the authority of res judicata, arguing that the dispute had already been settled by the Commercial Court of the canton of Berne.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the question of the authority of res judicata in the context of a dispute relating to patent infringement. It recalled that the authority of res judicata is a matter of federal law and that the notion of res judicata must be understood in a broad sense, encompassing not only the dispositif of the decision, but also the grounds and findings of fact that underlie it.
The Federal Court also examined the question of the materiality of res judicata, which arises when the same dispute is submitted again to a court. It recalled that the materiality of res judicata assumes that the dispute is identical, which means that the facts and claims must be the same.
In this case, the Federal Court considered that the dispute submitted again to its examination was not identical to the one that had been settled previously. Indeed, the manufacturing process of Allopurinol used by the defendant had changed, in particular with regard to the use of Ammoniak as a reactant. The Federal Court therefore…