Editing Doctrine of equivalents (section)

=== Switzerland ===
On 21 March 2013, the [[Federal Patent Court of Switzerland]] adopted an approach similar to the three-prong test applied in [[Germany]]. The court based its decision on the three questions:<ref>Kontrazeptiva; GRUR Int 2014, p 543. [[Federal Patent Court of Switzerland]], March 21, 2013.</ref>
#Do the replaced features have the same objective function (same effect)? 
#Are the replaced features and their same objective function obvious to a [[person skilled in the art]] on the basis of the teaching of the patent (accessibility)? 
#After reading the wording of the claim in light of the description, would a [[person skilled in the art]] consider the replaced features as a solution of equal value (equal value)?

The court denied equivalent infringement of EP0918791B3, since paragraph 19 of EP0918791B3 explicitly teaches that toxic chromium compounds may be replaced by metallic catalysts. A person skilled in the art would not consider the organic catalyst TEMPO as a solution of equal value to the ruthenium salts specified in claim 1. The answer to the third question was negative.

The court also ruled that there was equivalent infringement of EP1149840B1, since all questions of the three-prong test were answered in the affirmative. The court set forth that the replacement of the claimed p-Toluenesulfonic acid with pyridine/water constituted basic knowledge taught during the first years of an undergraduate course in organic chemistry.

In ''Urinal valve II'',<ref>Patentverletzung durch Nachahmung; GRUR Int 1/2017, p 40. [[Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland|Federal Supreme Court]], October 3, 2016.</ref> the [[Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland]] basically affirmed the three-prong test applied by the Federal Patent Court. The Supreme Court still partly reversed the Federal Patent Court’s earlier ruling on case [https://www.bundespatentgericht.ch/fileadmin/entscheide/O2014_002_Teilurteil_2016-11-21.pdf O2014_002]. The Supreme Court contended (reasons 6.4) that a second embodiment of the urinal valve fully implemented the key teachings of the asserted patent EP1579133, even though the second embodiment was not literally covered by the wording of the relevant claim. The Court went on to establish equivalent infringement.